Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs K Narasimhamurthy on 18 December, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.507/2008
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka
Through Shivalli police station.
...Appellant
(By Sri.B.T.Venkatesh, SPP-II)
AND:
K.Narasimhamurthy s/o Kempanna,
Aged 40 years,
Badge No.3214,
Driver of KSRTC Bus bearing
No.KA-09 F-3081 of Mandya Depot
R/o Opposite Sankranti Bankers
Club, Vidya Nagar, Tumkur.
...Respondent
(By Sri.L.Raja, Adv.)
This Criminal Appeal is filed u/S.378 (1) & (3)
Cr.P.C praying to grant leave to file an appeal against
the judgment and order of acquittal dated 03.12.2007 in
S.C.No.85/2007 passed by the JMFC, Mandya-
acquitting the respondent-accused for the offences
p/u/Ss.279 and 304-A IPC.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for final hearing
this day, the Court delivered the following:-
-2-
JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of accused (respondent) for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.
2. I have heard the learned S.P.P for appellant and learned counsel for respondent-accused.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14-1- 2006 at about 5.30 a.m., accused being the driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No..KA-09 F-3081 drove the bus at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner on the road near Kyatangere badavane and knocked down the pedestrian-deceased (Nagaraj). Thus accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.
4. The prosecution has relied on evidence of PWs 1 to 7 and documentary evidence as per Exs.P1 to P7.
PW-1 Rajanna has deposed that on the date of incident at about 5-30 a.m. he was walking on the road in front of Chamjundeshwari temple. At that time, the K.S.R.T.C bus came from Bannur side and dashed -3- against deceased who was walking alongside of the road. After the deceased fell down the left front wheel of the bus ran over the deceased. The deceased succumbed at the spot. PW-1 lodged first information as per Ex.P1 . PW-1 was declared as hostile witness for not completely supporting the case of prosecution. During cross-examination, PW-1 has deposed that he had not seen the accused driving the bus. He has deposed that accused was not the driver of the bus. However, he has admitted that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of K.S.R.T.C bus.
PW-1 has not supported the case of prosecution in its entirety. PW-1 has not disclosed the manner in which accident took place. From the evidence of PW-1, it is not possible to hold that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the K.S.R.T.C. bus.
5. P.W.2 Mote Gowda has deposed that he had witnessed the accident. PW2 has deposed that on the date of accident at about 5 a.m., he had gone to temple. When he was walking alongside of road, a K.S.R.T.C bus came from behind and dashed against the deceased -4- Nagaraj. The front left side wheel of the bus ran over the deceased Nagaraj.
During cross-examination, P.W.2 has given inconsistent version. PW-2 has admitted that at the time of accident he was proceeding after visiting the temple. In the next breath, he would say that he was selling green leaves. Therefore, the presence of P.W.2 is rendered doubtful. PW2 has deposed that apart from the deceased 25 to 30 persons were there. From the evidence of P.W.2 it is not possible to hold that KSRTC bus driven by accused knocked down the deceased who was proceeding alongside road. It appears, at the time of incident there was a Jathra near the temple and the place was crowded. In the circumstances, evidence of PW-2 that accused was driving the bus at a high speed cannot be accepted.
6. PW-4 K.B.Jayaram has given evidence relating to inspection of spot and preparation of spot mahazar. PW-4 has deposed that he visited the place of incident and prepared rough sketch marked as Ex.P6. The contents of rough sketch cannot be read as per say -5- evidence. The accident took place on 05-01-2006. The rough sketch was prepared on 14-1-2006. The evidence on record does not disclose that the bus was parked near the place of accident from 5-1-2006 to 14-1-2006. The evidence on record does not disclose that the place of accident was guarded to hold that PW-4 was able to notice the place of accident and position of the bus after the accident when he prepared rough sketch on 14-1- 2006.
7. P.W.5-Prabhu is alleged to have witnessed the accident. He has deposed that on the date of incident he had gone to Sri.Shaneshwara temple at Bannur road. After performing pooja, he had come out of the temple. He was waiting for an auto-rickshaw and at that time, a K.S.T.R.C bus came from Bannur side. The bus was proceeding towards Mandya. The deceased was walking along side of the road. The bus came at a high speed and headlights of the bus had been switched off. The bus dashed against the deceased and front wheel of the bus ran over the deceased. PW-5 was -6- declared hostile for not completely supporting the case of prosecution.
During cross-examination, PW-5 has deposed that when he came out of the temple it was still dark. When he came out of the temple about 10 to 15 persons were there inside the temple and 8 to 10 persons had gathered outside the temple. The evidence of P.W.5 that bus came and knocked down the deceased cannot be accepted as there were other people along with deceased.
8. It appears that deceased had abruptly crossed the road and came across the wheels of the bus. Therefore, it was not possible for the accused to avoid the accident. On re-appreciation of evidence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment.
9. The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.