Point of Law: Admitted evidence alone cannot be said as sufficient evidence to hold actionable negligence of accused in driving vehicle at time of accident.

ORDER :

The revision petitioner/accused feeling aggrieved by judgment of first appellate Court on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, at Chikodi, in criminal appeal No.176/2013 dated 10.10.2014, preferred this present revision petition.

2. Parties to the revision petition are referred with their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The factual matrix leading to the case of prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that on 17.05.2012 at about 2.40 p.m. near Hukkeri, Government Hospital on the bus stand Court circle, the accused being driver TATA ACE Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-49-2344 driven the same with high speed in rash and negligent manner. On account of such actionable negligence in driving the vehicle, dashed to kumari Deepa who was going to hospital along with her mother and as a result, accident in question occurred. On account of accidental injuries, Kumari Deepa succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident, while she was under treatment in the hospital. On these allegations made in the complaint, the case was registered in Hukkeri P.S. in crime No.54/2012 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for brevity) and Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred as ‘M.V.Act’ for brevity). The investigating officer on completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

4. In response to the summons, accused has appeared before the trial Court and contested the case. The accused pleaded not guilty to the accusation leveled against him and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in order to prove the accusation leveled against accused relied oral evidence of PWs.1 to 9 and documents Exs.P.1 to 16.

5. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, came to be recorded. Accused denied all the incriminating material evidence appearing against him and claimed that false case is filed. Accused relied his own evidence as DW.1. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC, and 134 R/W Section 187 of MV Act and imposed sentence as per order of sentence.

6. Accused challenged said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before First Appellate Court on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, at Chikodi in Criminal Appeal No.176/2013. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciating the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of trial Court in convicting the accused and imposition of sentence. However modified the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 304A of IPC reducing to three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-.

7. Revision petitioner-accused feeling aggrieved by concurrent findings of both Courts below preferred this revision petition contending that both the Courts below have committed serious error in relying evidence of P.W.1, who is mother of deceased of Kumari Deepa which is not corroborated by any other evidence on record. The prosecution has failed to prove the culpable rashness of negligence of accused in driving the vehicle leading to the accident in question. The finding recorded by both Courts below are not in conformity with spot features available at spot of accident recorded under spot panchanama Ex.P.6 and sketch map Ex.P.7, as the result recorded improper reasoning in holding accused guilty for the offences alleged against him. The abrupt appearance of Kumari Deepa across the vehicle was not anticipated by the accused and as a result, the child came in contact with vehicle and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The approach and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by both the Courts below and the findings recorded cannot be legally sustained. Therefore, prayed for allowing the revision petition and to set-aside the