IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.64/2019 Between:
The State by Lingadalli Police Rept. by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru – 560 001. … Appellant (By Sri. M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) And:
Sunil L.C.
S/o Chandrappa Aged about 26 years Occupation: Accountant in contract basis at Lingadalli Raita Samparka Kendra R/at Bavimane Bidi Lingadhalli, Tarikere Taluk Chikkamangalur District – 577 101. ... Respondent (Served and unrepresented) This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. pleased to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.04.2018 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Tarikere in C.C.No.321/2015 acquitting the accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304A of IPC.
This Criminal Appeal is coming on for Orders, this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T The present appeal has been preferred by the State being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Tarikere in C.C.No.321/2015 dated 30.04.2018.
2. Though this case is listed for hearing on interlocutory application, with the consent of learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant/State, the same is taken up for final disposal.
3. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant/State. Though, the respondent served with notice, he remained absent.
4. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 20.12.2014 at about 2.00 p.m., when the accused being the driver of Maruthi Suzuki bearing registration No.KA-04-J-5482 along with other witnesses who were traveling, he was holding Learner License and drove the said car in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life. Due to the said act, he dashed against the deceased Dashrath, who was sitting near the water tank. Due to the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
5. It is the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant/State that the trial Court without appreciating the facts and law has erroneously passed the judgment of acquittal. It is his further submission that the trial Court completely failed to consider the oral testimony of PWs.1, 8 and 10.
They have categorically deposed about the rash and negligent act of the driver of the said car. He further submitted that the mahazar at Ex.P3 and other records also supported the case of the prosecution and the accused has not disputed that at the relevant time, he was the driver of the said vehicle and the accident also occurred and death of Dashrath has taken place. All these materials clearly go to show that the accused is responsible for the said accident. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment and convict the accused.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant/State and he has also made available the evidence and documents produced before the Court below.
7. On close reading of the records, the prosecution in order to establish its case has got examined 10 witnesses as PW.1 to PW10 and got marked 19 document as per Exs.P1 to P19. PW.1 is the complainant, in his evidence he has deposed that while returning from Lingadalli, the alleged accident has taken place and the accused dashed his car to his brother Dashrath, as a result of the same, at about 12.00 noon he died and the alleged accident has taken place due to the act of the accused. He has filed a complaint as per Ex.P1. This witness has been treated as hostile. During the course of cross-examination, PW.1 has admitted the fact that the said vehicle was driven by the accused with a great speed and dashed to his brother, who was sitting near the water tank. During the course of cross examination, he has deposed that after 5 minutes of the accident, he had been to the spot and he put water to his brother. He has admitted the fact that in the complaint, he has mentioned that the said vehicle has been driven by one Manukumar. He has further deposed that accused as well as Manukumar were driving the said car. The other suggestions have been denied by this witness.
8. PWs.2 and 3 are the panchas to the spot mahazar and seizure mahazar at Exs.P3 and P4. During the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discard their evidence.
9. PWs.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are the eye witnesses to the alleged accident, they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as hostile. During the course of evidence, they have deposed that the same car was driven by one Manukumar, he has driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to a person who was sitting near water tank except that nothing has been elicited from the mouth of these witnesses.
10. PW.9 is the ASI who registered the complaint as per Exs.P1 and issued FIR as per Ex.P10. PW.10 is the Police Inspector who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet as against the accused.
11. On close reading of the evidence which was produced by the prosecution, no witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and all the eyewitnesses have turned hostile and nothing has been elicited to substantiate the case of the prosecution to show that the said car was driven rashly and negligently so as to endanger the human life. As could be seen from the evidence of these witnesses they have categorically deposed before the Court below that one Manukumar who has been examined as PW.8 was driving the said car with great speed. When he was driving the said car, then under such circumstances, the question of accused driving the said car rashly and negligently and causing the accident cannot be acceptable. When the witnesses themselves they have deposed that the accused has not driven the car in a rash and negligent manner, then under such circumstances, the charge sheet ought to have been filed as against the PW.8 instead of accused. No doubt, this Court could have directed the Investigating Officer to investigate and file charge sheet as against PW.8 but the said witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. No useful purpose is going to be served by doing so.
12. Looking from any angle, the judgment of trial Court deserves to be confirmed. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the judgment of trial Court, it is neither perverse nor illegal and the same is confirmed.
13. In the light of the discussion held by me above, the appeal being devoid of merits and as such, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
In view of disposal of main appeal, I.A.No.1/2019 for condonation of delay does not survives for consideration. Accordingly, the same is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NR/-