Karnataka High Court
The State Through Cpi vs Yuvaraj Dhareppa Tavashi on 6 September, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 06m DAY 0;? SEPTEMBERS..Q§_3,f'_'__S'4'I' if
BEFORE V
THE HON BLE A/IRA;L;ST1c;§SS;$;*'5 P£'N??€}.f.:
CRIMINAL APPEAL 2;?0§';--2o 1 1S ii
BETWEEN: V V
THE STATE THROUGH
0.91., ATHANI POLICE % .
STATION V A A.
_QS»_ _ '_; A~.__'7yHAPPELLANT
{BY SR1 ANAND I<.NA\}f'i;i&IS,GAvIF~./IATH, ;l.€::'P'.';'"""
AND;
SHRI YUvA}_2AJ DHA~REVPPA«ff;A§,ZAS_Hf
AGE; 32 Y'EA¢E§S',< 0'Cc';..'DRr<.zE':2S? "
R/QSBILLUR T'ALLA?KA'A=.5A'E':'~'.,. " '
DIST: SANGLE * A
WRESPONDENT
{E%«y'~Sri B.,;:S'¢..K3AMATE, A'I3----'-xi-;§' APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 3'78(4}' .0? OF CRIMENAL PROCEDURE: SEEKING SET AS%1DEf'm_E:"oRDER OP' ACQUETTAL PASSED BY THE ADEJITIQNAL»..'m;::TR1CT 8»: SESSEONS JUDGE; FAST TRACK ._j£Z'-Q.Um' A Iv, BELGAUA:-3, EN cRL.A.No.:4S/2002 ma THEE .{3'E?f?"E1NC.:ES U'/8.279,; 337, 338} 3@4{A; 0;? IPC AND :34 'vR,:w";--1'a;i M.\!.AC'i' AND CONFERM 'ma JUDGES/IENT IN C_C.N0.72j2c«o: DATED 02.12.2002 PASSED BY "SE-f.PZVq£\gi§FC COURT; ATHANE.
THIS <:R:M;NAL APPEAL {S <:0MIN<3 SN FOR HE/~':RE£'~5{:
'T7313 BAY', THE cam? E}E;iL§'v'ERE3D THE F'{}LL€}W1?x%G: A x?
JUDGBEENT This appeal is fiisd by thé: State Challengiriégf--_:fh€ judgment dated 28.10.2004 passsd by tbs Additiaifiadis.s§§"£:s€r§h0_4t and Sessions Judge, Fast Track C1'-0'L'£ri,--,--~ '_44f_..Bev}gau'm.d ilrzé CrI.A.N0.14(:3/2002 confirming the orcibxj' :0f:A.00n{?i;t;:1'0r3'. against the respondent for $1"/':\\"
Section 187 of I\/I.V_AC'L "0rder of conviction for offencss 338 and 304A IPC passed /2002 by its judgment V
2. It is {£16 case.ofAiI1€"§1'0se<:uti0n that tbs accused / Y€SpOf1d€'1f:;:'C. 0:1 at about 5.30 p.m., xvjzhira the I:':'1*z':i{:Vs viflage on Athani Parthanahalh road, drovéaVfiqfifié"*0F_Q_0i{~EfbV{éaring N0}./iH»EO/A ---- 4522 in rash and 71jn€:g.':1'g€nt E*nah_né'f endangering human fife and as a resuit. of
4. .s:L;1c'}"}--,c%'2'idxz'§;":g5v"the vshicis ran over the mad side poo} and {<31} .".4'Vdo:--s?:.z a1f1d"as a result 0? which, 9 psrsons sustaérzed griemus V'~._inja;"1'és and othsr passsngers sustaimad simpis iYijLE?§€S and 037:9 Asharani, daLzgh'::er of Appasab Jame? succumbed {.0 the /2:
QQ injuries in the said accident, tlherehy, the respondent is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 338 and 304 A IPC, it is further alleged that * accident, the accused ran axlxray jtncl_fai.l.ed to 1«;epm l"tol_}th'teV V police station and thereby, he is alle'ged7__tollhafve"
offences under Sections l34 r/W; Section 'l\/l.l\f,A"'ctl§"'
3. ln order to prove the "case,.~*thef_'prosecution has examined in all 32;"xil'lisq;Z"esse.s El:><s.P.l to P37 and produced V; l"l'he defence of the accused was' after hearing the prosecution learned Magistrate was pleased to«vhjoldlll'that".'llthe' accused has caused accident, respectively to the injured and the decea'sed.l'_andv :helld.l['h.i'rn guilty of the effences under Sections 'gJ27~;_, 337;"-.33.8"a.rl'd 304,/t we and Sections :34 and t8?' «of and sentenced him aecordlnglly.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order of convict1'on and sentence; the accused filed an appeal before the learned % Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum and the Eeamed Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -- 4, after re~apprec1'ating the evidence on record, c_:a:meA"":d'----..thve.t ~ conclusion that the prosecution has....h,ot p_'rc>\}e"d.:thVat_Wth'e_V V accused has committed the offences ur'.=de:rj'_ASectioh's_2?'9; 338 and 304A [PC and aoquittedvivédhrm of sa.id:..;'e}'1Var:ges. '' However, the learned Additional Se--ssio.hs-Judge'pleased to confirm the order of "edoah'-;ie_ti'o};1 against the respondent for thevoffdevhcezfi ur1'd.e1'.44SeV°(_:--tior11334 r/w. Section 187 M.V,A<:t. Sessions Judge was of disqualificatzon of holding the respondent over and above the fine tri--.aIVtiVourt for the said offence. The said susperrsio't'rof licence shall be in effect for a period t:f_o'r:e"-rr1orith"frorr1 the date of communication of the to'€.hVe acedused by the Court heiow wher: he appears or 'airs.-bro11ght e'e.:};§i;-e the Court beiiow, It is aiso directed that the
7..4"Co'urt shah intimate the RTG eoheerhed, regarding the dsaispoergséon of driving Eieehee of the respondent. 9?
S. "i"§':e Si:2?:::e §3<;%ize1;; 22g;;;§ri<[%x*<:%ri§ E35' Ihéé {)i'C3€,;?§' of ;»f§<7<;z:i£[z2;:z§ paseeei in faxreur of {he resmmdem €§I"§'v'€E' }"2a«::s3 appeal. The execused has mi): {',hZ:Ti§§€?I'1§{€?d ti'm?<. ei"'L:Ev"<§':<e bf', Cgnyjction recorded 2;1c>'2;1inS';' him f<>r.....t;he _<i=i'fe":*;'e.é':5: "':.;ficie-ff V !,_,V. Sections 187 MW. 134 E'v'E.V.ACti 2;m<i"'1.;a1Es}é>T "%E*:<i5'~:1:%:.i<m ':;?}:e««.§»%:";.. against him uncier Se<:'£;i<m 23 of v§%'fl§_!"Q£'vy.;";{fii.
6. Heezrd Sri /"m;amd K.Néir-'i,'§}iE§ei€Vfi'3Eiikixi', Ea?-»g};::'{i.%;>c:$ fiigh Cam; Government, Pleaeder.'"'e-.,e,§*"§e 3:312E3:miV:;s"*€h22.V{Veiihe evidence of {:16 eyewitness base beef}. m*isre'a :eE iearned Additional Sessicms -\}l;»§C§g(?"A&E3'7IvC} :e'§.3e .4<1'i:=V:i_<>y (>5 {he Eeemzed Ac§(%1'*:1'€.:>:1a! Sessions Jazctfige 'hasé; If€V':>*~'L.£'§~?E?{§._'_€17' 'iT£§8Cf€iI'I"§a§;E? of jzistéee. He submits thaéi the inju:'e'd v{*?f;m?sssc%s: §'1E:ifT1€E}7 Pwsxié ::<:> E93' azid :15"27'VL2%2*'e;""'t'heV'Asrjgeswfir:<3s;s;é:*s; 05 %.;§':<? iE'3{','§'{§(';'§'E'[, é:T'iE'3(§ E: is %}':::>i;r* versicm i;CE121f: the <i:'i:e*er <3? éihsj: 'v'€E'§":'§C§:":$ who has eaigged '€}'>;<«:<:> as:Cé§.e'%2t 2;m«:f% Ehaé: {he 2;eb%<:§e W225; <.%,tr"é'~,«'e:e"; £32 rash "ég:éi:£'~:éeg15gemi'*ma,nner cm {he éaze of {he irzeiéené. He furzher "'.VS§ue'bn:i:s"':'E5:at the £2§"{}Sff>>€i%Xaf}'E§§E£:"éfi(i3}3 ef the said énjurefi " V . _ w::fie'S'Se7$ has :30: };%<?§<:§i:%<% e;;m;' §3€'}f%1E2?iiZ§V'€:? ;;:ms;we;** in f2nr<;:L2:' 5;? i§E"se {§€f€§':C€ and i;he?ef<>:'e, égha: Eizi-::':::;?{% ;"~f§;;s;;{f3:~;::'2;2i<% convicted the respondent for the said offence. lvlowe'ver, the appreciation of the evidence carried out by the_.rlea«r_n~ed Additional Sessions Judge in the appeal is ~ evidence of the witnesses nor the _Jappllea_tion"'Aeof eor1*eC'fi principles of law. Hence, he subrnits :l;<lf121:€.:'fl'l'l€ allowed.
7. Srl E3.S.Karnate, learned C'olJns.--e.lvl"fofr the respondent submits that the learned Addicti*on'alA'Sessions Judge in the appeal has {Vlitnesses thoroughly and has prosecution has not proved the beyond reasonable doubt. that the learned Additional fonndllinfirmitles in the evidence of the witnesses" andfavlso.'-discrepancies which has given rise to a ndoltzbt, as"to wjhe-tl--ier the accused was either rash or negligent date of the offence and hence, subrnits that the order paetfizlttal does not eall for interference. lt is further sluh4rn'i't'ted lo}; him that in an appeal against aeqtnttal, the 1 <,, Appellate Court shall be Sl{}\?%' in reveesingg the order of z?
acquittal into ene ef C()t"1V'i(f'il()I'1. C)nl}~' in cases where tlzere is grass miscarriage ofjustiee or where the judgment is_.peVf'z:ei<.se or where the judgment is not based on the * record; then only the Appellate Court; _n1.at}:__Con_'Vert" Otder (Bf acquittal into one of conviction. He"1«sL1bA_Amltsl't.}j;at.t1§3"
grounds are available to the proseetl-tlc)n. ."O_n 'thee-.Qt'ljet'hand, l' the appreciation of evidence by tlh--e.sleafn_ed Sless.é0.ns Judge has been properly carried otit _ande..tlE1ere.fore»,t.he submits that the appeal may be disnlvissepl.
8. I gdjne tl1le'"j'tldgment sf Conviction passed by the le_an1ed*«.'M.agisttziate and also the judgment of acquittal p9.SS€ClddD:v'l'[}1¢.vl€3ffI"ll€'§ Sessions Judge. The learned Se'ssé.onsv-§:J'ttd;,'te in arat's""3'9l to ell at its tzdomentt has held as .A ._ . :5' A. l3 3 :2» follevfs : "
l' the recitals in the spot mahazar H l that there were brake marks up to the V ' *a,_exlteztt ef 91 This fdiszfées the say ef the ~g§r"0se<:t:tion witnesses that the abeue said vehicie was going in 0: high speed, 5 the vehicle was gzoznggz St') 772?/£€?!"Z, speeédtltg, them brake merits UJOUECE have {been Jfetmcf to ieztgf % -3- extent. Furzhoer, none of the proseeutzoho witnesses have stated {he ogjplieoiioh Hoj'f_ brake by the accused. Even some qf7.._€F=zoe'"-h' witnesses who were szfimog in the eobuzh-«:f' 'M Zh/of vehicle have olso ho: séoted Zhe :u;5ee%zo,'A applieatiorzo of the bro/iCe=._v by-AAefh'e Therefore, {Z is cfeajr fhoZ"V-- thee};-'V-V.hooeh suppressed csericzm fczCi5:.o;;<':.cE ho::zz;--e r::o3f_'.s:o,.:ec§ all the facts whicho Zed' the ur1fortm.2;v:i2fe accident.
40. Adding' Eo the Motor Vehicle the aboz/e' at ail been I/' he had been by MCEN, his Vmtezzvtiohho. have been drawn zo {he ieidiho of food and CC}??,CZZifiOU, of the }"oEo};«37 eizzd {he nzorks found So the exzehi oi;_t'Fje road and defence would have "*eZz'cize'»:é_' Afhe exact reason for the accident. No---r2~e:x:omiooo:Eéoho of the Motor E/ehiofe [2/zspheeior is «:2 serious lacuna ff': zhe ease of prosecution. The said Motor 1/ehiefe inspectors report has also not beer: marked in ihe eases % Mg"
& 4]. It was contena7ea by the Eearneci F'abhe_ Prosecutor that the fact that the saia' t!eh,icuZe.._""'s._ fell on the right side of the road ztseif h * V the fact that the aboue said uehicle ttsas.§]o.i'ngVVt' 'M speeaify and that the aecidezzat place due to the rash or n'egZz?gent <':iff=.. the above said tzehicie by the _t:(7cuse<:th.-A.VBat the said argument doersrnot appeal When the prosecution "L'3:aVrm:ned witnesses and AeXan2Ti:ne"a'hfthe ,tUZtn€SS€S who were_sitting_..in:'_the* uehicie none of~vthen; haveg the exact reascgn nate accident.
In- A'a2it,t?\6§sses have been statedhthaeV:s.at€.denhappZication of the brake by then stated above) the prosecution'has'--._atsb not e,>x:a'znz'nea7 the Motor ~'5;,Vehaz'cte Inspectorv who had inspectea' the said zre'hi<:Z.e:'«-..V As discassea' supra, tn the C£rc'a.znsta.nces ofthe case, nonexarnination of ".__"Vhthe..'Z3/fiwtor Vehicte Inspector is a seréoas Eacana in the ease of the prosecatiozz. Under ' such circumstances, it is not passtbte to infer ht " rash, and neghgent oiriatng of the said oehtete sotety on the groanof that it haa fatten on the right side Of the read. Thus U?TE?Z»£,?Eb7"e'.Q'¢§{i?'CI§"f?, atng angte it has to be heta that there is no % ~ E€.}--
consistent Cmd Cogent eezidehee on record is prove beyond QZZ reasohahie doubt Eh/at above said aeeidehi had Zafcen piczee the rash or hegiigehr cizvvirzgg of ihe aehez}:-ex 'u 2/'eh,z'CZe by the accused or doubt has is be €,'C?f8,VE,Q7,é?(:1i Z'f'Z.::";f'fT4'l::L/()'t£.I."'.> f'i52f'e:'--- accused. Court' be1Q»w_'_ through the eUidenee"*vs.se.Vef the' witnesses and has also' he.f'i'a'henheéiesevj of the prejudice cfzuszhed 7.to by the non--examihaZi0nA_...ffif; 'hxfl/'I'<:V>'fi~fi>ji-- Vehicle Inspects"/* gheatl ":i'7"as .e_QheZuding the guilt Therefore, the CC)?"l,CZl1,C27/Ifflg the g;uz'Zt__ for the offence 337, 338 and 304{Aj [PC z's":<7.OZ L?<:Zv,3:iCgA£?_uVSf'E'.C?,iI3,a,[3Z€ in law. "
C)'n e§'7cafefu1 consideration of the reasoning assigned by the Judge and on going thmugh the fléhvidenee sf thfe'p1?bsecution wfmesses and on a thorough re~ "e1§;j:re"Céa1fi0r1"c2f; the evidence 0f the prosecution wémesses, V'W_fn<>'_1*e_ paf?;ie'uiar1}/3 eye wétrlesses, I am cf the opinion that the eréer-'0?%:he Eearrzed Sessiems Judge is based am the evidenee "recorci and sorted: appreeéafzion of the evi<%e:7ce mfr:
%
-1]-
reference to the sewed principles of law. On a prcper re« appreciation of the evidence on record, E do not ground to interfere with {he order cf acqL1irte1E learned Sessions Judge and hence merits and therefore, the same is 1iarb1e'.Vt07be disrn.is'e:ed. "
Accordingly, appeal is rxvj/gab