IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.
Manasing S/o Tukaram Lamani – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 100215 of 2015
Decided On : 12-01-2024
Rash and Negligent Driving - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 279, 338, 304-A - The court discussed the evidence and found that the accused, a bus driver, was acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC due to lack of evidence proving rash and negligent driving. The court highlighted the importance of following traffic rules and regulations and the duty of drivers at intersections. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the lower courts were set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a bus driver, was convicted and sentenced for offences under Section 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC for a road accident resulting in the death of a motorcycle pillion rider and injuries to others. The accused challenged the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the lower courts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence presented was contradictory, and the court highlighted the importance of following traffic rules and regulations, particularly at intersections. The court concluded that there was doubt in the case of the prosecution and extended the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Issues: The key issues were whether the lower courts committed illegality in appreciating the evidence and whether the judgments of the lower courts required interference by the higher court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of drivers to follow traffic rules and regulations, especially at uncontrolled intersections, and the importance of corroborative evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court also highlighted the need for proper appreciation of evidence by the lower courts.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition filed by the accused was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the lower courts were set aside. The accused was acquitted of the offences, and his bail bonds were cancelled. Any fine amount deposited by the accused was to be refunded to him digitally.
ORDER :
1. The revision petitioner i.e. accused in C.C. No. 208/2011 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot (for short “Trial Court”) being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 11.11.2011 convicting and sentencing him for the offence punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC and confirmed by the II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (for short “I-Appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No. 77/2011 vide judgment dated 01.09.2015, has filed this revision petition.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this petition are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The facts leading to the case of the revision petitioner-accused in brief are as under:
4. Before the Trial Court, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution, in all, examined ten witnesses PW-1 to PW-10 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 with respective signatures thereon. During the course of cross-examination, certain portions of complaint as well as statements of PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. were marked.
5. Learned Trial Court on hearing the arguments and on assessment of the evidence, found the driver of KSRTC guilty of committing offences punishable under section 297, 338 and 304-A of IPC and sentenced him as under:
(B) For the offence punishable U/Sec.338 of Indian Penal Code, an accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months and shall liable to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (One Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
(C) For the offence punishable U/Sec.304(A) of Indian Penal Code, an accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months and shall liable to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- (Three Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days.
All sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
As per the provisions of Sec.357 (A) of Cr.P.C. an accused is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the dependent of deceased Mallikarjun Deevatagi and Rs. 5,000/- to the injured person by name Yallappa Kulageri.”
6. This judgment of conviction and order on sentence was challenged by the accused before the Appellate Court by preferring an appeal in Crl. Appeal No. 77/2011. The I-Appellate Court on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, confirmed the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial. This is how the revision petitioner-accused is before this Court challenging both the judgments passed against him by both the Courts below.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that, he being bus driver has taken all precautions to avoid the accident. When he was moving his bus by crossing the road circle, it was the rider of the motorcycle came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner in the middle of the road without anticipating any vehic
Negligent driving resulting in injuries constitutes a violation of IPC Sections 279, 337, and 338, warranting conviction and deterrent sentencing.
Revisional court acquits of rash driving/death charges where site plan shows victim vehicle on wrong side, speed unquantified, negligence opinions inadmissible; upholds conviction for fleeing without....
Skid marks and eyewitness high speed testimony prove rash negligent driving under IPC 279/337; revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings absent perversity.
The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish negligence, which was not met in this case.
Evidence given by a witness in a previous judicial proceeding or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, when the witness is dead, is relevant for the purpose of proving the matter, provide....
Revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence to upset concurrent convictions under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338 absent perversity; driving on wrong side of narrow curve without precautions constitutes....
In a prosecution for causing death by negligence under Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the vehicle and that their actions we....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.