Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1865
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.SOMASHEKAR, J.
K. Mallikarjuna S/o Kalappa - Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka By Jayapura P. S. - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 991 of 2011
Decided On : 09-12-2019
For the Appellant :Sri. M Sharass Chandra, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. Thejesh .P, HCGP
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credit-worthy evidence to secure a conviction, and the potential for misdirection and misinterpretation of evidence leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Headnote:
IPC - Rash and Negligent Driving - Sections 279, 304(A) - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and documentary evidence, and found that there was no credit-worthy evidence facilitating the prosecution to secure conviction. The court highlighted the inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's case and concluded that the trial court and the appellate court misdirected and misinterpreted the evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The petitioner/accused was acquitted of the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a goods autorickshaw driver, was convicted for rash and negligent driving resulting in a fatal accident. The prosecution presented witness testimonies and documentary evidence to prove the accused's guilt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not credit-worthy and highlighted inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's case. It concluded that the trial court and the appellate court misdirected and misinterpreted the evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Issues: The key issue was whether the accused was guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of credit-worthy evidence facilitating the prosecution to secure conviction, the inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's case, and the misdirection and misinterpretation of evidence by the trial court and the appellate court.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner/accused was allowed, and the judgments of the lower courts were set aside. The petitioner/accused was acquitted of the charges.
ORDER :
1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment rendered by the lower Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.16/2011 dated 28.07.2011 partly allowing the appeal and confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Court of JMFC (II Court) at Mysore in C.C.No.391/2008 dated 20.01.2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
2. The factual matrix of this petition is that on 24.1.2008 at about 7.45 p.m. near Doddakere situated on the main road between Mysore – Udbur near Udbur village, the accused being the driver of goods autorickshaw bearing Regn.No.KA55171 drove the said autorickshaw in a rash and negligent manner from Mysore side towards Udbur side and dashed against the motorbike bearing Regn.No.KA09EL6934. As a result of the said impact, the rider of the Motorbike Chikkanna sustained head injury and succumbed to the injury while shifting to hospital for treatment.
3. Subsequent to the incident, by recording an FIR, the IO after thorough investigation filed charge sheet against accused. Thereafter, the trial Court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC and issued summons to the accused. After receipt of summons, accused appeared before the trial Court and charges was read over to him, but he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked documents as per Exs.P1 to P10. The incriminating statement of the accused as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded whereby he denied the truth of case of the prosecution. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned A.P.P and the counsel for the accused and after appreciation of evidence placed on record, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo SI for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo SI for one month for the offence under Section 279 of IPC. Further, the accused was sentenced to undergo SI for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/, in default, to undergo SI for a period of one month, for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.391/2008, the accused preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.16/2011. The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 28.07.2011 while confirming the conviction for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC, modified the sentence to undergo SI for one month for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and to undergo SI for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC. But the fine imposed by the trial Court remained intact. Hence, this petition by the petitioner/accused by urging various amongst other grounds.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court erred in passing the impugned judgment holding that the accused was guilty of the offence alleged against him for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. Further, the Courts below have not properly appreciated the inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. PW.1 is the complainant, but not the eye witness to the alleged accident and has been treated as a hostile witness. PWs.2 and 3 are said to be relatives of deceased Chikkanna and PW.2 did not withstood his version of his statement and he has been treated as hostile. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 runs contrary to the evidence of PWs.5, 6 and 8. It is contended that though the accused did not caused any accident, he has been lugged in the alleged crime, but whereas he has helped the injured by admitting him to the hospital by looking into the humanitarian consideration,.
7. He further contends that no prima facie case has been made out by the
