Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs R Ramesh on 13 March, 2023
Author: P.N.Desai
Bench: P.N.Desai
-1-
CRL.A No. 388 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 388 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAILWAY POLICE
MYSURU-570001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP.)
AND:
R. RAMESH
S/O. RAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O. PRAKASH GENERAL STORES
NEAR KALLURU YADENAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU-570001
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by (BY SRI. P NATARAJU., ADVOCATE)
NAGARATHNA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 5.7.2014, PASSED BY THE
III CIVIL JUDGE & CMM, MYSURU, IN CRL.CASE.NO.6/10 BY
ALLOWING THIS CRL.A PASSED BY THE COURT BELOW; AND
CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDNET-ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/S 159 & 160 OF RAILWAY ACT, 2003.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.A No. 388 of 2015
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru in C.C.No.6/2010 dated 05.07.2014, wherein the accused/respondent was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 159 and 160(2) of the Railway Act.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 13.07.2009 at about 07:15 p.m., on duty Station Master, Mysuru informed the SIPF, Mysuru in connection with accident caused by the driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA-19-1559 to LC gate No.05 at KM No.04/700-800 between Mysuru and Bengaluru Railway Station. On receipt of message, Sri. Manchegowda, the then SIPF, Mysuru and constable - 76 had visited the said LC Gate at about 07:30 p.m., and enquired about the incident with the gateman/Govindaiah. The Gateman informed them that on 13.07.2009, when he was on duty and at about 04:45 p.m., when he closed the said gate for passing of Mysuru passenger train No.267, one private bus bearing No.KA-19- -3- CRL.A No. 388 of 2015 1559 dashed against the closed gate, consequently, lifting barrier boom of the gate was damaged and the accused along with the vehicle ran away from the spot. The Station Inspector, Railway Protection Force had drawn an observation mahazar of the said LC Gate. On the complaint given by Gateman of L.C. Gate No.5, a case was registered in Crime No.1711/2009 for the offences stated above and submitted FIR to the jurisdictional Court and took up investigation. After completing the investigation, the investigating officer has filed the charge sheet for the above stated offences.
3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P16. After hearing the arguments, the learned Senior Civil Judge acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed.
4. Heard Sri. Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for appellant and Sri. P.Nataraju, learned counsel for the respondent. -4- CRL.A No. 388 of 2015
5. The learned HCGP for the appellant argued that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. Learned HCGP argued that the Trial Court has acquitted the accused on the ground that no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Learned HCGP argued that the Trial Court has erred in giving benefit of doubt to the accused as there was no explanation in the complaint regarding the delay of visiting the spot by the officials of Railway, even though the information was received by him at 04:30 p.m. on 13.07.2009. The Trial Court has grossly erred in holding that the prosecution has not examined material witnesses much less the owner of the offending vehicle in order to prove the guilt of the accused. The Trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused even though the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 are cogent and consistent to the evidence of PW.4, who was on duty gateman has clearly deposed in chief-examination the fact of the case and identified the bus driver. The learned HCGP argued that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW.3 who is the Section Engineer and issued the cost of damage and repair charges -5- CRL.A No. 388 of 2015 of the said gate and his evidence corroborates with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and even the Trial Court has not considered the evidence of PW.4 who was on duty as a Gate man and he has supported the case of prosecution and has identified the bus and note down the bus number. PW.6 who is the Motor Vehicle Inspector issued IMV report which is marked as Ex.P16. Learned HCGP argued that the Trial Court has failed to discuss regarding the material document and the confessional statement made by the accused before the RPF officer. The voluntary statement of accused is marked as Ex.P3, wherein he has admitted his guilty. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is illegal and perverse and needs interference by this Court. With these arguments, learned HCGP prayed to allow the appeal and convict the accused.
6. Against this learned counsel for the respondent argued that the accused is not identified by any of the independent witnesses at the place of accident. PW.4/Gateman has identified the accused in the police station on the next day, even though he was present at the -6- CRL.A No. 388 of 2015 time of accident. The owner of the bus which is stated to have caused the damage to the gate was not examined to show that the accused was driving the bus on the said date of accident. There are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. PW.1/Sub-Inspector of Police though received the information at 07:15 p.m., but in the cross-examination, he has stated that he received the information at 04:45 p.m. and visited the place of offence at about 06:00 p.m., but no complaint was lodged. The statement of owner of offending bus was also not marked. Therefore, he argued that the learned JMFC has rightly acquitted the accused. With these main arguments, learned counsel prayed to dismiss the appeal.
7. I have perused the impugned judgment of acquittal and other materials on record.
8. PW.1/Manchegowda is the Sub-Inspector of Police who is the investigating officer went to the spot after receiving the information and he conducted the spot panchanama/Ex.P1 and received the complaint as per Ex.P2. -7- CRL.A No. 388 of 2015 He has also stated that on the next day of the incident, they have seized the bus and arrested the accused and recorded his statement as per Ex.P3. Then, they brought PW.4/Govindaiah who is the gateman to the police station, where he has identified the accused. He has collected the documents and identified the bus and seized the same as per Ex.P4/seizure mahazar. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that before the railway gate, there was a road breaker. He has denied the suggestion that the gate was already damaged. Though he received information at 04:45 p.m. why he went to the spot at 06:00 p.m. is not forthcoming. He has not seen the accident.
9. PW.2/C.Kumaraswamy is the Police Constable who accompanied PW.1 and went to the spot. Therefore, he has also not seen the accident. He has also admitted that several vehicles also passes through the said railway gate.
10. PW.3/J.Manjunath is the Section Engineer who is working in the K.R.Nagar. He has deposed that on 13.07.2009 at about 4:45 p.m., he was informed over the phone about the alleged incident and he visited the spot at -8- CRL.A No. 388 of 2015 about 10:00 p.m. and he has stated that the offending bus was not there at the spot. He deposed that the left side boom of the railway gate was damaged. He has also stated a sum of Rs.44,958/- is the repair charges of the gate and he also gave report as per Exs.P6 and P7.
11. PW.4/Govindaiah is the Gateman working at Mysuru. He deposed that on 13.7.2009 at about 04:35 p.m. the Arasikere - Shivamogga train has to pass through, hence, he closed the said gate. At that time, a bus bearing registration No.KA-19-1559 came there and without stopping the same hit the gate and went away. Immediately, he noted the number of the said bus. Then he gave information to RPF Police and they came at 07:30 p.m. and registered the complaint as per Ex.P2. On the next day, he has identified the accused in the police station. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the police have written the complaint and he do not know the contents of Ex.P2. He has also stated that while he was closing the gate there were number of vehicles parked at that place. He has stated that he has not seen the accused on the date of accident. Then how he has -9- CRL.A No. 388 of 2015 identified the accused in the police station is not forthcoming. No test identification parade is conducted. Owner of the vehicle is not examined to prove that the accused was driving the bus on the said route on the date of accident. His evidence will not help the prosecution.
12. PW.5/Balarajaiah was working as Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police in the Railway department who has conducted the further investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses.
13. PW.6/Kushalappa who is working as Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector stated about verifying the offending bus and giving IMV report as per Ex.P16. He further stated that the accident not occurred due to any technical defect of the bus.
14. On perusing the entire evidence and judgment of acquittal, it is evident that the learned CJM found that there is a delay in lodging the complaint. The driver of the bus not identified. No test identification parade is conducted. The owner of the bus was not examined. On the date of the alleged incident, there were number of vehicles parked on
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 388 of 2015both sides of the road. PW.4/Govindaiah who is the gateman has not identified the accused. Then on what basis the charge sheet filed against the accused is not forthcoming. Therefore, the learned CJM considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses held that the identification of accused is not proved, as PW.4 identified the accused in the police station which has not evidentiary value. Therefore, the learned CJM given benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him.
15. It is the settled principles of law that this Court being a Appellate Court cannot lightly interfere in the judgment of the acquittal by the Trial Court, unless the said finding is not based on the evidence or the judgment is perverse which requires interference by this Court. The Trial Court has considered the entire evidence meticulously and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt. I find that the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is neither illegal, perverse, erroneous nor the judgment has
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 388 of 2015resulted in miscarriage of justice. Absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere in the judgment of acquittal. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
16. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. The appeal filed by the State-appellant under Sections 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.
2. Consequently, the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.07.2014 passed by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru in C.C.No.6/2010 against the respondent/accused is hereby confirmed.
3. Bail bond, if any, executed by the accused, the same shall stand cancelled.
4. Office is directed to send back the records to the Trial Court.
5. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33