Karnataka High Court
The State By Circle Inspector vs Veeresh @ Veerappa 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.1014 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
The State by Circle Inspector
of Police, Karkala Circle
Udupi District.
Rept. by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru- 01. ...Appellant
(By Sri. M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP)
AND:
Veeresh @ Veerappa
S/o Karibasappa
Aged 35 years
R/o Bannikate
Nindagundhi, Koppa
Yelburga Taluk
Koppa Taluk-577 126. ... 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 07.12.2018,
passed by the Court of II Additional Civil Judge and
-2-
JMFC, Karkala in Crl. case No.485/2011, acquitting the
accused-respondent for the offence punishable under
Sections 279, 304A of IPC and Section 3(1) r/w 181 of
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 hearing.
2. This Court felt that it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent. Therefore, notice to respondent is dispensed with.
3. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala in C.C.No.485/2011 dated 07.12.2018 whereunder, the respondent-accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC and Section 3(1) r/w 181 of I.M.V. Act.
-3-
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 22.05.2011 at about 12.45 p.m., the accused being the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-37-9581 without having any driving license drove the same rashly and negligently so as to endanger the human life, dashed against the jeep bearing registration No.KA-19-M-1193 and as a result of the same, inmates of the jeep sustained grievous injuries. On 28.05.2011 at about 4.50 P.M., one of the inmates of the jeep succumbed to the said injuries. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304A of IPC and Section 3(1) r/w 181 of I.M.V. Act. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.
5. 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 recording of plea, plea was read over to the accused and he pleaded not guilty. He claimed to be tried and as such, the trial was fixed.
-4-
6. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has got examined 06 witnesses got marked 18 documents as Exs.P1 to P18. Thereafter, the statement of accused got to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating material and he has not led any evidence on his behalf and no documents were got marked. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused, impugned order of acquittal came to be passed.
7. It is the submission of the learned HCGP that the Court below without considering the materials placed on record, has erroneously acquitted the accused. PWs. 1, 2 and 3 are the injured eye witnesses and they have supported the case of prosecution and even inspite of their evidences, the Court below has acquitted the accused. There is no proper appreciation of evidence of PWs. 1 to 4. He further submitted that the accused was not having valid and effective driving licence. The Court below ought to have -5- convicted the accused under Section 3(1) r/w 181 of I.M.V. Act.
8. It is his further submission that the person who was driving the vehicle has to take care of traffic Rules. If the act of any person is against the Rules and Regulations, and if he has not followed it as an ordinary human being, then under such circumstances, it can be attributed that the said act is a rash and negligent act and the accused can be convicted.
9. He further submitted that the Trial Court without taking into consideration the fact that the accused has not given any explanation under what circumstances the alleged offence has taken place, has wrongly acquitted the accused. On these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order and accused may be convicted.
10. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned HCGP and I have also -6- gone through the evidence of witnesses and documents made available by the learned HCGP.
11. PW.1 is the injured eye witness as well as he is the complainant. In his evidence, he has deposed that on 22.05.2011, himself and other witnesses were proceeding in a jeep bearing Registration No.KA-19-M-1193 and PW.4 was driving the said vehicle and at that time, the Toofan vehicle came with great speed from Karkala side and dashed to the right side of the jeep and caused accident. As a result of the same, the inmate suffered injuries and immediately, he has been shifted to the hospital. He further deposed that when he made an enquiry of the Toofan Vehicle, he came to know the name of the driver as Veerappa. He further deposed that he has filed a complaint as per Ex.P1. During the course of cross-examination, he has deposed that at the time of accident, both the vehicles were on tar road. He has further deposed that the back portion of the jeep got damaged and he has seen the said jeep half a kilometer away before the accident. The other suggestions were denied by all this witnesses.
-7-
12. PW.2, who is another injured witness also traveling in the same jeep, reiterated the evidence of PW.1. During the course of cross-examination, he has admitted that, Parpale-Karkala road is in curvature nature and he cannot say the typography of the road. But he has deposed that the said road is in upgradient manner. He also admitted that the said road is in the form of curve. The other suggestions have been denied.
13. PW.3 is another eyewitness and he is a panch witness to Ex.P2. He also reiterated the evidence of PW.1 and has deposed that the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Toofan vehicle. During the course of cross examination, he also admitted that, the road proceeding towards Karkal-Nitte, is in upgradient manner.
14. PW.4 is the driver of the said jeep. He also deposed that the alleged incident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Toofan vehicle, who drove the same with a great speed and dashed at the backside of the jeep. During the course of cross -8- examination, he has admitted the fact that in the said accident, the Toofan vehicle dashed towards the backside of the jeep.
15. PW.5 is the Police Inspector, who registered the case on the basis of Ex.P1. He has drawn the sketch, filed FIR and partly investigated the case.
16. PW.6 is the Investigating Officer, who further investigated the case and has filed the charge sheet against the accused.
17. On close reading of the evidence which has been adduced before the Court i.e. PWs.1 to 4, who are examined on behalf of the prosecution are the eye witnesses and they were traveling in the said jeep, which met with an accident.
18. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has to prove that the driver of the Toofan vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life. Unless and until the rash and negligent act of the accused is proved, the accused cannot be convicted for the alleged offence. Though PWs.1 to 4 deposed before the Court, but they have deposed before the -9- Court about the Toofan vehicle coming with great speed and dashed to the backside portion of the jeep and they have not specifically deposed before the Court that the driver of Toofan vehicle drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed to their jeep.
19. Be that as it may. The said witnesses have deposed before the Court that they have seen the said jeep coming at a distance of half-a-kilometer. During the course of examination, all these witnesses have admitted that the place where accident has occurred is in the form of curvature and it is upgradient. Admittedly, the Toofan vehicle dashed to the backside of the jeep. At the time of accident, the inmates of the jeep were sitting in the front seat of the jeep and then under such circumstances, it is not possible for them to witness the accident.
20. Another significant factor in this case is that there were some inmates in the Toofan vehicle, which was driven by the accused. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, none of the witnesses have been examined by the Police. When the accident spot was with deep curve and
- 10 -
it was in upgradient way, then under such circumstances, it is not possible to plead that the said Toofan vehicle came with great speed and dashed to the jeep in which the said witnesses were traveling.
21. It is consistently suggested by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused that because of driver of the jeep, the alleged accident has taken place. Though it is denied that the prosecution witnesses were traveling by sitting in the front portion of the jeep, the Toofan vehicle dashed to the back portion of the jeep and it is in upgradient manner. Then under such circumstances, there is every possibility that PW.4, who is the driver of the jeep immediately or suddenly, stopped the vehicle cannot be overruled. In the said facts and circumstances, the evidence which has been adduced before the Court does not repose any confidence so as to come to a conclusion that the alleged incident has taken place due to rash and negligent act of the accused.
22. Be that as it may. Even the prosecution has not produced any documents to substantiate the fact that
- 11 -
the driver of the jeep was not having a valid and effective driving license as on that day. Looking from any angle, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts.
23. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the judgment of the Trial Court and other records. The Trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances, has come to the conclusion and has rightly acquitted the accused.
24. I am conscious of the fact that, if the accused is acquitted, the Appellate Court will be very slow in interfering with such orders. It is interfered only when the said order is either perverse or not in accordance with law. No such case has been made out by the prosecution to interfere with such orders.
25. Keeping in view of the above said facts and circumstances, 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 main
- 12 -
appeal, I.A.No.1/2019 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSD