Back
2014 Supreme(Kar) 309
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR, J.
KUMARA S/O NANJUNDAPPA - PETITIONER
Versus
THE STATE BY GUDIBANDA POLICE REPD BY IT’S A.P.P. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.766/2010
Decided on: 25.4.2014
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner: (BY SRI. Y.R. SADASHIVA REDDY, ADV.,)
For the Respondent: (BY SRI. NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on testimonies of eyewitnesses and injured persons to establish negligence and the identity of the accused in a rash and negligent driving case.
Headnote:
Negligence - Rash and Negligent Driving - IPC 279, 337, 304A - The court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC. The key legal provisions discussed by the court include the definition of rash and negligent driving under IPC 279, the punishment for causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others under IPC 337, and the punishment for causing death by negligence under IPC 304A. The court's decision was influenced by the testimonies of eyewitnesses, the examination of the injured persons, and the findings of the Magistrate and Sessions Judge.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a lorry driver, was convicted for rash and negligent driving resulting in an accident causing the death of six persons and injuring four others. The prosecution presented evidence from eyewitnesses and injured persons to establish the negligence of the driver.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient evidence to establish the negligence of the driver and to identify the accused as the driver of the lorry at the time of the accident. The court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses and injured persons.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution could prove the negligence of the driver and establish the identity of the accused as the driver of the lorry at the time of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimonies of eyewitnesses and injured persons to establish the negligence of the driver and the identity of the accused as the driver of the lorry at the time of the accident.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the accused were confirmed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points with their corresponding references:
- Case Details: The case is Kumara S/O Nanjundappa vs The State, Criminal Revision Petition No. 766/2010, decided by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore on 25.4.2014. (!) (!)
- Subject Matter: The judgment pertains to Criminal Law, specifically Negligence and Rash and Negligent Driving under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). [judgement_act_referred]
- Legal Provisions: The court relied on Sections 401 and 397 of the Cr.P.C. for the revision, and Sections 279, 337, and 304A of the IPC regarding rash driving, causing hurt, and causing death by negligence. [judgement_act_referred] (!)
- Facts of the Case: The accused, a lorry driver, caused an accident on the night of 08.05.2005 between 2.30 am and 09.05.2005. The lorry dashed against a tamarind tree and toppled, resulting in the death of six passengers and injury to four others. (!)
- Procedural History: The accused was initially convicted and sentenced by the Magistrate (Judgment dated 16.08.2007). This conviction was confirmed by the Fast Track Court (Judgment dated 29.04.2010) in Criminal Appeal No. 35/2007. The current case is a Criminal Revision Petition filed against these judgments. (!)
- Petitioner's Argument: The counsel for the petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove negligence beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction relied on the impermissible doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur in a criminal case. They also claimed the identity of the accused as the driver was not established. (!) (!)
- Respondent's Argument: The High Court Government Pleader submitted that the prosecution provided cogent evidence from injured eyewitnesses establishing both the negligence of the driver and the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (!)
- Evidence Regarding Negligence: The court noted that while PW1 (an injured passenger) could not identify the driver, other injured passengers (PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6) categorically stated that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. (!) (!) (!)
- Evidence Regarding Identity: The court found that PW2 and PW3 specifically identified the accused as the driver. Additionally, PW22 (the lorry owner) denied any suggestion that someone other than the accused was driving. (!) (!)
- Corroborative Evidence: The case was supported by the testimony of 29 witnesses, including panchas (PW7-PW21), the doctor who conducted postmortems (PW23), the Motor Vehicle Inspector (PW24), and police officials (PW25-PW29). The Motor Vehicle Inspector confirmed the accident was not due to mechanical defects. (!) (!) (!)
- Court's Finding: The High Court held that the evidence from injured passengers (PW1 to PW6) sufficiently established both the negligence of the driver and the identity of the accused. The findings of the lower courts were deemed correct and based on proper appreciation of evidence. (!)
- Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the accused were confirmed. (!) (!)
By judgment dated 16.08.2007 in C.C.No.133/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) and JMFC, Gudibanda, the revision petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment. The conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner has been confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.35/2007 on the file of the Fast Track Court at Chickaballapura by judgment dated 29.04.2010.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below, this revision petition is preferred under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C.
3. The petitioner was the accused before the Magistrate. The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night between 08.05.2005 and 09.05.2005 at about 2.30 am, the accused being a driver of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA02D2556, drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and thereby he lost control over his driving and as a result, lorry dashed against a road side tamarind tree and thereafter toppled. As a result of the accident, as many as six persons travelling in the lorry died on the spot, whereas four persons were injured. A complaint came to be lodged by one of the injured Narayanaswamy (PW1) on the strength of which, a case came to be registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC and upon investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed against the accused the driver of the lorry for the aforesaid offences. The accused having denied the charges levelled against him, the prosecution in order to prove the charges examined as many as 29 witnesses as PW1 to PW29 and marked Exs.P1 to P23. After the closure of the prosecution side, the incriminating circumstances that cropped up during the course of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses have been put to the accused by way of his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. so as to give him an opportunity to explain. The accused has not led defence evidence. Learned Magistrate having heard the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and upon going through the entire evidence placed on record both oral and documentary, by judgment dated 16.08.2007 convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 304A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months, one month, and one year respectively. Criminal Appeal No.35/2007 filed by the accused challenging his conviction and sentence by the Magistrate came to be dismissed by judgment dated 29.04.2010 by the Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court at Chickaballapura. Hence, the accused is before this Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused would submit that though the prosecution has examined number of witnesses and marked number of documents, it has failed to establish the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry beyond reasonable doubt. Further, it is submitted that by invoking the doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur, the accused has been convicted, which is not permissible in criminal case. Learned counsel has also submitted before me that the identity of the accused as the driver of the said lorry is also not established and the learned Magistrate based on the statement made by the owner of the lorry, has convicted the accused and hence, he sought to allow the revision petition and to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit before me that the prosecution by cogent and convincing evidence of the injured eyewitnesses not only proved the negligence on part of the driver of the lorry, but also established the identity of the accused as the person who was driving the lorry at the time of the accident bey
