Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
B.V. PINTO, J.
STATE OF KARNATAKA —Appellant
Vs.
K. SURYANARAYANA RAJU —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2012
Decided on : 10-06-2013
Acquittal - Offences under Sections 279, 304 Part-II of IPC and Section 134(a)(b), 179(1) and 187 of M.V. Act - [KEYWORD] - [State Appeal against Acquittal] - [IPC Sections 279, 304 Part-II; M.V. Act Sections 134(a)(b), 179(1), 187] - The court acquitted the respondent of the offences under Sections 279, 304 Part-II of IPC and Section 134(a)(b), 179(1) and 187 of M.V. Act due to lack of evidence proving the respondent's involvement in the accident beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, the driver of a black Scorpio vehicle, was accused of driving in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the death of a police officer. The prosecution alleged that the respondent failed to stop the vehicle after the accident and did not provide aid to the injured. The prosecution presented 26 witnesses and material evidence to support their case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The court noted that none of the witnesses identified the driver or the vehicle, and the identification of the respondent's vehicle was based on an old dent, not connected to the accident. The court also highlighted the lack of evidence connecting the respondent to the accident.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution could prove the respondent's involvement in the accident beyond reasonable doubt. The court also considered the identification of the respondent's vehicle and the lack of eyewitness testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to establish the respondent's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the lack of eyewitness identification and the reliance on an old dent to connect the respondent to the accident. The court also noted the absence of evidence linking the respondent to the scene of the accident.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the state's appeal against the acquittal, affirming the trial court's decision. The court found no perversity in the trial court's judgment and concluded that there was no merit in the appeal to interfere with the order of acquittal.
B.V. PINTO, J.-This appeal is filed by the State challenging the Judgment dated 30.3.2011 passed by the City Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bangalore City in S.C. No. 805/2007 acquitting the respondent of the offences under Sections 279, 304 Part-II of IPC and Section 134(a)(b), 179(1) and 187 of M.V. Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 18.3.2006 at about 11.45 p.m. on Cubbon Road, near BRV Junction, Bangalore City respondent being the driver of the black colour Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. KA-04-MC-5055, drew the same on the M.G.Road in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life, and at that time, the deceased as well as the police party were checking the drunken driving and had put the barricades at BRV Junction.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased PSI-N. Arun Kumar, stopped the Scorpio vehicle and went to check the said vehicle and by that time, the respondent has pretended that he is going to stop the vehicle and when the said PSI-N. Arun Kumar, wanted to check the vehicle, the respondent neglected the orders of PSI and immediately the respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against on duty Police Officer-N. Arun Kumar, who was near the junction on checking duty, knowing fully well that the such act would cause the death of the deceased-N. Arun Kumar and as a result of the said act deceased was succumbed to the injuries in the hospital, thereby, it is alleged that the respondent has committed the offences under Sections 279 and 304 Part-II of IPC.
4. It is the further case of the prosecution that knowing fully well that the accident has taken place in which one person has injured, the respondent has not stopped the vehicle either to give first aid to the injured nor to inform the said incident to the nearest Police Station, thereby he is alleged to have committed the offences 134(a)(b), 179(1) and 187 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act.
5. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 26 witnesses and got marked Exs-P1 to P44 and produced material object No. 1-Scorpio Car. The defence of the respondent was one of total denial. However by the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to hold that the prosecution has not proved the case against the respondent as being the driver of the said vehicle and has acquitted him giving benefit of doubt. It is this Judgment of acquittal that has been challenged by the State in this appeal.
6. The Commercial Street Traffic Police received a complaint on 19.3.2006 at about 1'o clock in the midnight by one S. Vidyuth. It is stated in the said complaint that on that day, at about 11.45 p.m. when the complainant was on his way back to his residence in Jayanagar, he stopped his two wheeler [Kinetic Honda, KA-05 EE 2412] on Cubbon Road near the old BRV Theatre junction. He noticed traffic police checking at the junction. There were two barricades placed on either side of the lane. He was behind the Scorpio vehicle. He noticed the vehicle moving slowly and a police officer on the right side of the vehicle. The officer was talking to the driver. The officer then walked up to the front of the vehicle, as vehicle started raising the accelerator. At the moment of impact, the complainant saw the officer being hit by the vehicle and he subsequently fell down on his right side. As he fell down, the vehicle ran over his leg and sped away leaving heavy black smoke behind. The complainant could not notice the registration number due to the black smoke emanated from the Scorpio Car. He noticed the rear glass was tinted with horizontal lines. As they were all engaged in lifting the officer and putting him in an Auto, some traffic police officers got onto a pulsar to chase the vehicle. After they shifted the injured officer into an Auto, he came to know that he was being taken to Bowring Hospital. He later on came to know that the injured officer's name was Mr. Arun Kumar, Sub Inspector of Traffic
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
