Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 304a in State Of Karnataka vs Putta Swamy S/O.Lakshi Gouda on 2 December, 2020Matching Fragments
This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 02.06.2014 passed by the J.M.F.C. at Siruguppa in C.C.No.523/2012 thereby acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') read with Section 183 of the Motor Vehicles Act ('M.V.Act').
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that a complaint came to be filed on 18.11.2011 at 1.00 p.m. by one Soppinamath Shambulingayya Swamy stating that he along with others visited Bengaluru on 16.11.2011 in a Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA-36/9362. They started their return journey to Maski, on 17.11.2011. At about 1.30 a.m. they stopped their vehicle by the side of road, near a tea stall in Srinivas Camp. While they were having tea near tea stall, his uncle Gurubasaiah Swamy was having tea standing behind the Tempo Trax. At that time, a Lorry bearing registration No.KA-12/A-121 coming from Siruguppa and heading towards Ballari, dashed against front side of the Trax. Due to the impact, the Trax moved back and hit Gurubasaiah Swamy inflicting severe injuries to his chest, right limbs and waist. Immediately injured was taken to Government Hospital, Siruguppa. The accused by his rash and negligent driving had committed the offences punishable under Section 279, 304A of I.P.C.
3. Based on the complaint, Crime No.95/2011 was registered at Siruguppa Police Station. After investigation charge sheet was filed for offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of I.P.C. r/w Section 183 of the M.V. Act. Subsequently, the injured Gurubasaiah Swamy died during treatment at KIMS Hubballi. Consequently, the charge was revised to Section 304A of I.P.C. As accused pleading not guilty, matter was set for trial. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses as PWs.1 to 15 and marked Exs.P1 to P13. Thereafter the entire incriminating material was explained to the accused which he denied. His statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') was recorded. The accused did not choose to lead defence evidence.
4. Based on available material, trial Court proceeded to framed following point for consideration:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed offences punishable U/sec.279, 304A of IPC r/w Section 183 of M.V.Act?
2. What order?
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused Sri R.H.Angadi submitted that prosecution miserably failed to establish any ingredients for offences alleged against accused. The material ingredient required to be proved by prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt for offences under Section 279 and 304A is that of rash and negligence on the part of accused so as to endanger human life, which is totally missing in this case. It was submitted that the witnesses examined merely stated that accused was driving the Lorry in high speed, which stood diluted by their admission that there were speed breakers near accident spot. None of them stated about any specific act or omission on the part of accused that would support the charge of rash and negligent driving by accused. It was also submitted that deceased Gurubasaiah Swamy was standing behind Tempo Trax and would not be visible to accused. Therefore accused could not be charged or convicted for offence under Section 304A of IPC, especially when injuries suffered by Gurubasaiah Swamy was not due to direct contact with Lorry.