Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This revision petition is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.2015, passed in C.C. No.171/2011 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal (for short, 'the Trial Court'), convicting and sentencing the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and confirmed in Crl.A.No.66/2015 dated 24.11.2016 by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Haveri (for short, 'the First Appellate Court).

17. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner relies upon Ex.D1, another photograph, wherein the scene of offence is being shown by the eyewitnesses there. It shows that, towards the western side of the road, the said accident has taken place. Coupled with that, the defence relies upon Ex.D2, the sketch. The sketch shows that, the bus was coming from Haveri to Hangal side, i.e., from

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:579 northern side to southern side. The car was moving from Hangal side to Haveri. It is stated that, tar road is having a width of 18 feet. On either side of the tar road, there exists a 6 feet kachha road. The said accident has taken place towards the western side of the road, wherein we find that there was a sufficient space available for the car driver to move on the left side of the road so as to avoid any casualty. It shows that the said car which was coming from Hangal side towards Haveri went towards right side of the road where the bus was coming and dashed against it. Therefore, now as held by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, it cannot be stated that, the driver of the bus was rash and negligent in driving the bus. The learned counsel for the accused is right in his submission that, driver of the bus was driving his bus on his left side.

18. Sofaras oral evidence is concerned, PW.1 Mukund Vitoba Jannu being the complainant though reiterates the contents of the complaint in his evidence on oath, for the first time, he states before the trial Court that

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:579 the bus abruptly came and dashed to the car. This evidence do not find place in the complaint. Moreso, in the cross-examination, he states that at the scene of the offence the tar road is having a width of about 18 to 20 feet. He admits that there exists a 6 feet wide kachha road on either side of the tar road. According to him, the eastern side of kachha road coming from Haveri to Hangal is full of ditches. He admits that the western kachha road while coming from Haveri to Hangal is equal to the surface of the tar road. If that is so, when the said road is full of ditches, was it possible to drive the bus in high speed is a question?. It is hard to believe the story of the complainant that, the bus was being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed. The possibility of driving the bus in high speed on the road where it was full of ditches is ruled out. PW.1 was confronted with the photograph at Ex.D1. He denied a suggestion that, there is a gap of 12 to 13 feet from the place of mark and to the western side of the road. He was also confronted with the sketch prepared by the IO. He

- 23 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:579 attributed against the accused, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove that the act complained of need not be rash and negligent one, but it need to be either rash or negligent. Black's law dictionary describes "negligence" as "a failure to exercise the standard of the care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation, any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm, except for conduct that is intentionally, wantonly or willfully disregardful of others". If this definition of negligence is attributed, here as per Ex.D2, the driver of the bus was moving from Haveri to Hangal on the left side of the road, whereas the driver of car was moving from Hangal towards Haveri. As per the photograph produced by the prosecution, the car dashed to the bus on its middle portion. So this shows that, the said driver of the Car was rash and negligent in driving the car and not the driver of the bus.