Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.
Sri Rakesh R Gowda S/o Ramegowda - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Crl.R.P.No.146 of 2014
Decided on : 01-03-2023
Identification of Driver - Indian Penal Code - Sections 279, 338, and 304(A) - The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the driver of the offending vehicle and the manner in which it was driven. The absence of material evidence and the failure to get the petitioner identified by the eyewitness and examine the owner of the vehicle weakened the prosecution's case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The petitioner was accused of causing a fatal accident while driving a car in a rash and negligent manner. The prosecution failed to prove the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner denied the incriminating evidence against him and did not present any defense. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner for offenses under Sections 279, 338, and 304(A) of the IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment and compensation. The Appellate Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner filed this revision petition to challenge the judgments and seek acquittal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution and found that it was insufficient to establish the petitioner's guilt. The main eyewitness did not identify the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle and did not testify that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Another witness, who was injured in the accident, also did not see the driver. The police officer who investigated the case did not produce any material to support his statement about the owner of the vehicle and the driver's identity. The Court concluded that there was no material to prove that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The findings of guilt by the lower courts were not supported by material evidence and could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the driver of the offending vehicle and the manner in which it was driven. The absence of material evidence and the failure to get the petitioner identified by the eyewitness and examine the owner of the vehicle weakened the prosecution's case. Therefore, the petitioner's acquittal is warranted.
Result: The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges against him.
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Gundlupet (for short the 'Trial Court) in C.C.No.490/2007 dated 01.02.2010 and the judgment and order passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara (for short the 'Appellate Court') in Crl.A.No.9/2010 dated 16.03.2013.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Brief facts as revealed from the records that may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition are on 16.04.2007, the ASI of Gundlupet Police Station received a phone call from Forest Guard PW-1 - Puttaswamy at about 9.00 p.m, informing him about the accident which had taken place in front of forest gate situated at Gundlupet - Sulthan Batheri road. Immediately, ASI of Gundlupet police station - PW.2 had rushed to the spot and on enquiry from PW.1, he came to know about the accident that had taken place near forest gate at about 7.45 p.m, PW1 informed PW2 that the petitioner who was the driver of the Car bearing registration no.KA-09-A-6166 traveling from Gundlupet to Sulthanbatheri side drove the Car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bike bearing registration no.KL03-K-4899 which was coming from Sulthanbatheri side. The rider and pillion rider of the bike had suffered grievous injury and the rider had succumbed to the injuries. Based on the said information a case was registered by PW2 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 & 304(A) of IPC and after investigation, the police had filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence.
4. After service of summons, the petitioner had appeared before the Trial Court and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its case had examined in all 6 witnesses as Ex.P1 to P6 and also got marked 8 documents as Ex.P.1 to P8. The petitioner during the course of his Section 313 of Cr.P.C., statement had denied the incriminating evidence which was available on record against him. However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence nor did he produce any documents in support of his defence. The Trial Court thereafter heard the arguments addressed on both sides and by its judgment and order dated 01.02.2010 convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 & 304(A) of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months each in respect of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC and for the offences punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC, the petitioner sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year and under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C, he was directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, the petitioner had filed Crl.A.No.9/2010. The Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 16.03.2013 had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offences. He submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioner was driver of the offending vehicle that caused the accident. He submits that absolutely there is no material to show that offending vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. He therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below cannot be sustained. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State opposed the petition and has argued in support of
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to establish the identity of the driver and the manner of driving weakens the prosecution's case.
Accusation of negligence requires proof of rash and negligent driving; high speed alone does not establish guilt in criminal law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent and corroborative evidence of eye witnesses to prove the charges of rash and negligent driving, and the application of s....
The judgment reinforces the principle that driving in a rash and negligent manner resulting in injury or death constitutes a criminal offence under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the IPC, and that e....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove rash and negligent driving and causation beyond reasonable doubt in cases involving fatal accidents....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in evidence justified acquittal in a criminal case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible eyewitness and owner testimony to establish guilt in a case of rash and negligent driving resulting in fatalities.
The prosecution must conclusively prove rashness or negligence to establish criminal liability for driving offences; mere claims of high speed are insufficient without supporting evidence.
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
