S. R. BANNURMATH, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ashok R. Kalyanashetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramakrishna, the learned High Court Government pleader for respondent.

( 2 ) THIS revision petition is filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 31-8-1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate first Class, Bailhongal in Criminal Case No. 274 of 1994 affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Cri. A. No. 100 of 1996, dated 10th july, 2002.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: according to the prosecution, the complainant who was the driver of non-stop bus from Belgaum to Bailhongal bearing Registration No. KA-25/f-153 left Belgaum at about 10. 00 a. m. on 6-5-1993 and was proceeding towards Bailhongal. According to the prosecution, at about 12. 00 p. m. when the bus had crossed the Sampgaon Village was in the process of travelling and was at a distance of half a kilometre towards bailhongal, a truck came from the opposite side in a wrong way. When the complainant was in the process of taking his bus to the left side, the accused who was the driver of a tempo bearing registration No. KA-24/m-69 came rash and negligently, with great speed overtaking the truck and dashed against the left side of the bus. In the process, the passengers both in the bus and the tempo not only sustained grievous injuries but in all 13 passengers died and 17 left with grievous injuries. Immediately thereafter the driver of the bus lodged his complaint before bailhongal Police Station who came to register a case in Crime No. 108 of 1993 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC.

( 4 ) IN order to establish guilt of the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of as many as 42 witnesses and marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 53 and M. Os. 1 to 46. On appreciation of the evidence the Trial Court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for various terms for each of the offences as well as fine. Aggrieved by the same when the petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, belgaum, he too dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of conviction and hence the present revision petition.

( 5 ) THE main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to give proper opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case in the appeal. It is contended that though the petitioner was the appellant before the Court, without hearing the appellant or his Counsel, the learned Sessions Judge has committed illegality in proceeding with the main appeal itself. Hence, the main prayer of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that an opportunity be given to the petitioner to argue the appeal on merits before the learned Sessions Judge by remanding this case. In the alternate it is submitted that even the judgment of conviction on merits as found by the Courts below are illegal, improper and perverse. It is contended that both the Courts below have convicted the accused only on the moral conviction, being swayed away by the fact that large number of passengers had died in the accident. It is submitted that as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, mere death of large number of passengers ought not to have weighed in the mind of the Court to find the accused guilty. It is submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the act of the accused driving the tempo vehicle was in any way rash and was negligent. He also contended that invoking of doctrine of res ipsa loquitur by the Courts below is erroneous. On these among other grounds it is contended that as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, the judgment of conviction is liable to be interfered with. On the other hand, the learned high Court Government Pleader argued in support of the findings of the courts below.

( 6 ) I have perused the records summ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document