IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1020/2019 Between:
The State by Police Sub-Inspector, Puttur Traffic Police Station, Puttur, D.K.District Rept. by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru - 01. …Appellant (By Sri.M.Diwakar Maddur, HCGP) And:
Nagaraj U.G Aged about 32 years S/o Gurushanthappa R/at Hosakote House Kappanahalli Village Shikaripura Taluk Shimoga District – 577 427 …Respondent 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 dated 01.01.2019, passed by the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and A.C.J.M., at Puttur, D.K in C.C.No.1114/2015, acquitting the accused/respondent for the offences p/u/s 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 Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant-State.
2. The appeal is challenged against the judgment and order of the acquittal passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and A.C.J.M, Puttur, D.K in C.C. No.1114/2015 dated 01.01.2019.
3. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader. Though this case is listed for hearing interlocutory application with the consent, the same is taken up for final disposal.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.1.2015 at about 10.00 a.m, the accused being the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-19-C-7128 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner to endanger the human life and dashed against the Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-21-S-6964 which was coming from the opposite direction and as a result the rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered against the accused.
5. The trial Court took cognizance, secure the presence of the accused and after compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., heard regarding recording of the plea, the plea was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried, as such, trial was fixed.
6. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it has got examined 8 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.8 and got marked 19 documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the accused denied the incriminating material. The accused neither led any evidence nor got marked any documents. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court below acquitted the accused. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said order, the State is before this Court.
7. The main grounds urged by the learned High Court Government Pleader are that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below is contrary to the material placed on record. Though PWs.1 to 3 are eye witness to the alleged incident, the Court below has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. It is his further submission that the trial Court ought to have held that the alleged incident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused being a lorry driver.
8. It is his further submission that the speed is the criteria but if the circumstances, they are seen together then under such circumstances the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused.
9. It is his further submission that the accused has not explained to what circumstances the alleged incident has taken place. On these grounds he prays to allow the appeal.
10. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
11. The prosecution in order to prove the case, prosecution got examined 8 witnesses. PW.1 is the eye witness and he is also a complainant. In his evidence he has deposed that on 21.01.2015 at about 8.30 a.m when he was proceeding from his house at that time, a lorry came with a great speed from Puttur side and from Puttur side a motorcycle was coming at that time the accident had taken place. He has also spoken with regard to filing of the complaint at Ex.P1. During the course of cross examination nothing has been elicitated to discard his evidence. PW-2 is also an eye witness. He has also reiterated the evidence of PW.1 and so also PW.3 is also an eye witness he has spoken with regard to the speed of the vehicle except that nothing has been spoken with regard to rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry. PW.4 is the spot mahazar and seizer mahazar pancha witness to Exs.P2 and P3. PW.5 is the seizer mahazar pancha to Exs.P2 and P3. PW.6 is the investigating officer partly investigated the case. PW.7 is the person who registered the case and issued the FIR as per Ex.P19. PW.8 is the PSI who investigated the case partly.
12. By going through all the evidence produced before the Court below none of the witnesses have deposed with regard to rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. Except saying that the accused was driving the vehicle at great speed nothing has been deposed regarding rash and negligent act of the accused. Speed is not the criteria to come to the conclusion that the act of the accused is rash and negligent.
13. Taking into consideration of the above said facts and circumstances I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has not made out any good grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. The judgment of the trial Court discloses the fact that after considering the facts and law has come to the conclusion that the ingredients have not been proved and by taking into the said evidence has come to a right conclusion and has rightly acquitted the accused.
14. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
I.A No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration.
HB/-
Sd/- JUDGE