Karnataka High Court
The State By Puttur Rural Police vs Ramakrishna B S on 12 September, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1015 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
The State by Puttur Rural Police
Station, D.K. District.
Rept. by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru- 01. ...Appellant
(By Sri. M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP)
AND:
Ramakrishna B.S.
S/o late Somappa B.P.
Aged about 57 years
R/at No.34, 4th C Cross Road
Seethappa Layout
Manorayana Palya
R.T. Nagara, Bangalore-32. ... Respondent
(Notice to respondent is dispensed
with)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1)
and (3) of Cr.P.C. praying to grant leave to appeal
against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2018
passed by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Puttur, D.K. District in C.C.No.1135/2017,
-2-
acquitting the accused-respondent for the offence p/u/s
279,338,304(A) of IPC, RR Rule Section 7 read with
177of I.M.V. Act.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for Orders, this
day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Though this case is listed for hearing on interlocutory application, with the consent of the learned HCGP, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. After hearing the learned HCGP, it is felt by this Court that the issuance of notice to respondent-accused is not necessary. As such, the same is dispensed with.
3. I have heard the learned HCGP and perused the papers.
4. This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, D.K. in C.C.No.1135/2017 dated 29.11.2018 whereunder the respondent-accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 279,338,304(A) of IPC and Section 7 read with 177of I.M.V. Act.
-3-
5. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 04.12.2017 at about 5.15 p.m., the accused being the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-12-Z-2235 drove the same rashly so as to endanger human life and dashed against the two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-19-EH- 3853, which was coming from Sullia side. As a result of the same, the rider of the two wheeler Mohammad Asif sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, he was declared as dead. The pillion rider also sustained injuries. On the basis of the said fact, a complaint has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 279,338,304(A) of IPC and RR Rule Section 7 read with 177 of I.M.V. Act. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed.
6. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance and secured the presence of the accused by following the procedure under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing the prosecution as well as the accused regarding plea. Thereafter, plea was recorded, the accused has pleaded not guilty. The accused claimed to be tried and as such, the trial was fixed.
-4-
7. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has got examined 10 witnesses as PWs.1 to PW.10 and 22 documents were got marked as Exs.P1 to P22. Thereafter, the accused came to be examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances and he has neither examined himself nor any witnesses nor produced any documents. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the impugned order of acquittal came to be passed. Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, the State is before this Court.
8. It is the submission of the learned HCGP that the Court below has not properly appreciated the evidence of PWs. 3 and 4. PW.3 is the complainant who has filed the complaint. PW.4 in his cross examination has admitted that the alleged incident has taken place due to the speed and negligent driving of the accused. Without properly appreciating the said evidence and assigning any reasons, the Court below has acquitted the accused. -5-
9. He further submitted that the only reason which has been assigned by the Court below is that there is a correction made in the notice issued as per Section 133 of I.M.V Act. (for short it is referred as 'Act') That itself is not correct for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
10. He further submitted that the judgment of the Trial Court is perverse and not in accordance with law. On these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal, to set aside the impugned order of the acquittal and to convict the respondent-accused.
11. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned HCGP and I have also gone through the judgment of the Trial Court and the evidence and other documents, which has been made available by the learned HCGP during the course of argument.
12. PW.1 is the injured eye witness. Pw.2 is also an eye witness to the alleged incident. PW.7 is another eye -6- witness to the alleged incident. They have not supported the case of prosecution and they have been treated as hostile. Even during the course of cross examination, nothing has been elicited to support the case of prosecution.
13. PW.3 is the eye witness to the alleged incident. In his evidence, he has deposed that in front of his vehicle, the scooter bearing registration No.KA-19-EH-3853 was proceeding and on the said scooter, two persons were there and a car bearing registration No. No.KA-12-Z-2235 while overtaking another car had dashed to the two wheeler. Nowhere in his evidence, he has stated that the alleged accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the said car. Under such circumstances, the evidence of PW.3 is not going to help the case of prosecution.
14. PW.4 is another eye witness to the alleged incident. In the first instance, he has not supported the case of prosecution and he was treated as hostile. Subsequently, when the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor examined him, at that time, he admitted that the said accident has taken place due to speed and negligent driving of the car bearing -7- registration No.KA-12-Z-2235 by the accused and dashed to the two wheeler bearing registration No. KA-19-EH-3853. As such, the suggestion has been admitted. Though the said suggestion has been admitted in his evidence nowhere he has stated with regard to the rashness of the driver of car. In that light, his evidence will not come to the aid of prosecution.
15. It is well settled principles of law that in order to prove the guilt of the accused under Sections 279,338,304(A) of IPC and Section 7 read with 177of I.M.V. Act, the prosecution has to prove that the alleged accident has taken place due to rash and negligent act of the accused- respondent. In the absence of such material and that too in the first instance, he has not supported the case of prosecution and he has been treated as hostile. Subsequently, in cross-examination, suggestion has been admitted. In that light, his evidence does not repose the confidence of the Court to accept the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4. PWs. 5 to 7 are the official witnesses. They supported the case of prosecution.
-8-
16. PW.8 is the Police Inspector, who registered the case and filed FIR. PW.9 is the Investigating Officer, who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet. In his evidence, he has deposed about the investigation done by him. In the cross examination, he admits that corrections made in respect of vehicle number in Ex.P.16 - Notice under Section 133 of the Act is issued to the R.C. owner and Ex.P.17 is the reply issued by the R.C. owner and in the Ex.P16, there is no counter signature by the Investigating Officer to the corrections made. It also creates a doubt in the case. As per his evidence, PWs. 1 to 4 and 7 are eye witnesses and their evidence is not trustworthy, not reliable and even the evidence of PW.9 goes to show that the vehicle number of the scooter has been changed.
17. As per the case of prosecution, the said vehicle number is KA-19-EH-3853. But, as could be seen from notice issued under Section 133 of the Act by the Police Inspector at Ex.P.16, though the number of the vehicle is corrected, it has been mentioned as KA-19-E-3853 and the -9- said correction, which has been made was not countersigned by the Investigating Officer. Surprisingly, in Ex.P.17, there also the said corrections have been made. In fact, the corrections have been made in the notice and as well as in the reply given by R.C. owner but the same is not countersigned by him. In the said facts and circumstances, it also creates doubt about the case of prosecution.
18. Keeping in view of the said facts and circumstances, the evidence, which has been adduced does not repose confidence of the Court to bring home the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence.
19. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the judgment of the Trial Court. The learned Magistrate has elaborately discussed the matter and has come to a right conclusion. There is no illegality, perversity and irregularity in passing the impugned order.
20. In that light, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently on the dismissal of the
- 10 -
main appeal, I.A.No.1/2019 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSD