Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 496
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. Natarajan, J.
D. Manjunathappa - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 1072 of 2011
Decided On : 25-02-2020
Chetan Desai for C.H. Jadhav, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mahesh Shetty, HCGP, for the Respondents
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to provide credible evidence and establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, emphasizing the significance of cross-examination in discrediting witness testimonies.
Headnote:
Conviction - Indian Penal Code - Section 279, 337, 338 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, which deal with rash driving and causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. The court emphasized the importance of evidence in proving the guilt of the accused and the significance of cross-examination in discrediting the prosecution's case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner/accused appealed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the First Appellate Court. The case involved an accident where the accused, a bus driver, was charged under Section 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code for driving rashly and causing injuries to a passenger.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the delay in lodging the complaint, lack of medical evidence, and contradictions in witness testimonies, did not sufficiently prove the guilt of the accused. The Court also noted that the accused's denial in cross-examination was not enough to disprove the prosecution's case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence, delay in lodging the complaint, and contradictions in witness testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of credible evidence, the significance of cross-examination in discrediting witness testimonies, and the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision petition was dismissed, upholding the judgment of the lower courts.
JUDGMENT
K. Natarajan, J. - This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/accused assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 4.11.2010 passed by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Sira (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court) in CC No. 994/2009 and the same was upheld by the FTC-III Tumkur, (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Court) in Crl.A. No. 121/2010 vide order dated 02.08.2011.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader.
3. The status of the parties before the Trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience.
4. The case of the prosecution is that the Sub-Inspector of P.N. Halli Police filed charge sheet against the accused under Section 279, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) alleging that on 01.09.2009, the accused being the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Regn. No. KA-06-F-0369 has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the S.R.E. bus bearing No. KA-16-A-5803, which was parked near the road, due to which, PW.2 who was traveling in the KSRTC bus sustained injures. Thereafter, the PW.2 took treatment and filed complaint through her son PW.1. After registering the case, the police investigated the case and filed charge sheet. After appearance of the accused before the Trial Court, the accused was released on bail. Charges were framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the prosecution in order to prove its case, in all, examined 12 witnesses and got marked 8 documents. After closing of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The case of the accused was one of total denial, but not entered any defence. The Trial Court after hearing, found the accused guilty, convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 of IPC; Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 38 with default sentence. Assailing the same, the accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court, which came to be dismissed. Hence, the accused is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contended that the judgment of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are not sustainable in law. There is inordinate delay of 86 days in lodging the complaint, which was not at all satisfactorily explained by the complainant or the prosecution before the Trial Court. Even otherwise, the wound certificate does not reveal that the injuries sustained by PW.2 are grievous in nature. The doctor was also not examined. The conductor of the KSRTC bus has not been examined and cited as witness. The driver and conductor of S.R.E bus were also not examined by the Investigating Officer. There are contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, who are of the same family. There is no independent eyewitness examined by the Investigating officer for proving the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the judgment passed by the Trial Court suffers from illegality. Hence, he prayed for allowing the revision petition.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supported the judgment of the Courts below and contended that the accident was admitted by the accused in the cross-examination. The wound certificate was marked with the consent of learned counsel for the accused. The only defence taken by the accused is that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the S.R.E. bus driver and as there was no insurance policy to the S.R.E. bus, they have falsely implicated the KSRTC bus driver. Except the said suggestion, nothing has been elicited and produced before the Court. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly given the finding against the accused and held the accused guilty. There is nothing to interfere with the reasoned judgment of the Courts below. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.
7. Upon hearing the arguments and o
