Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.
Mohammed Asgar – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Crl.R.P. No. 563 of 2014
Decided On : 03-03-2023
CRIMINAL LAW - NEGLIGENCE AND TRAFFIC OFFENCES - Sec. 279, 337, 304-A IPC - The court discussed Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, which pertain to rash driving, causing hurt by endangering life, and causing death by negligence, respectively. The court interpreted these provisions to establish that the petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in a fatal accident. The evidence presented, including eyewitness testimonies, supported the prosecution's case, leading to the conviction of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a bus driver, was charged with causing the death of a scooter rider and injuring the pillion rider due to rash and negligent driving. The incident occurred on 24/7/2007 when the petitioner drove the bus into the scooter from behind, leading to grievous injuries and the eventual death of the scooter rider.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had successfully established the petitioner's guilt through the testimonies of multiple eyewitnesses who confirmed the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. The evidence was consistent and corroborated by official reports, leading to a conclusion that the petitioner was indeed responsible for the accident.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was guilty of the offences under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A IPC based on the evidence presented during the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, emphasizing that the evidence of eyewitnesses was credible and sufficient to establish the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The interpretation of the relevant sections of the IPC was applied to affirm the conviction.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal revision petition under Sec. 397 Cr.PC is filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 20/10/2011 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-III, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.3131/2007 and the judgment and order dtd. 7/6/2014 passed by the Fast Track Court-XIII, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.758/2011.
2. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioner and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. The petitioner was charged before the Trial Court for the offences under Ss. 279, 337, 304-A IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24/7/2007 at about 6.45 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Malleshwaram Traffic Police Station, the petitioner who was the driver of BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-01-F-1748 drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner on the 8th Main Road at Malleshwaram from South to North and dashed against the scooter bearing registration No.KA-02-Q-1166 from its hind side and as a result, the rider of the said scooter who had sustained grievous injuries in the accident succumbed to the same and the pillion rider/PW-1 - complainant had sustained grievous injuries.
4. On the basis of the complaint lodged by PW-1, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and the police after investigation had filed charge sheet. The petitioner had claimed to be tried before the Trial Court, and therefore, the prosecution in order to prove its case had examined, in all 12 witnesses as PWs-1 to 12 and also had got marked 11 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-11. The petitioner during the course of his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.PC had denied the incriminating circumstances available against him on record. However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court, thereafter, vide its judgment and order dtd. 20/10/2011 had convicted the petitioner for the offences under Ss. 279, 337 & 304-A IPC and sentenced him to under go simple imprisonment for 30 days for the offence under Sec. 279 IPC, simple imprisonment for 30 days for the offence under Sec. 337 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.5, 000.00 for the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence in Crl.A.No.758/2011 was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 7/6/2014. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material available on record.
6. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the petitioner had examined 12 witnesses as PWs-1 to 12. PW-1 is the injured eye-witness/complainant who was the pillion along with the deceased in scooter bearing registration No.KA-02-Q1166. He has clearly stated that the bus which was driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed against the hind portion of the scooter and had caused the accident and resultantly, the rider as well as the pillion rider had fallen on the road and had suffered grievous injuries. He has also stated that the rider of the scooter viz., Ravi who was his friend had succumbed to the injuries that was caused in the accident. He has identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
7. PWs-2 to 5 are the other independent eye-witnesses to the accident in question. All these witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and they have consistently deposed that the bus which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver had dashed against the scooter from its hind portion in which PW-1 and deceased Ravi were riding and had caused the accident. All these witnesses have also identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Their evidence corroborates with the evidence of PW-1.
8. PW-10 is an official of the petitioner's employer - BMTC and this witness has
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 principle of 'Res ipsa loquitur' applies in cases of negligence where the circumstances of the accident imply the driver's fault, and the burden of proof shifts to the accused to provide an expla....
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.
The main legal point established is that the conviction for rash and negligent driving was upheld based on the evidence of injured witnesses and documentary evidence, while the offence under Section ....
Conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in evidence can lead to acquittal.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering evidence, including the testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence, in determining negligence and liability in cases of accidents resulting ....
Strict adherence to precedent necessitates deterrence in sentencing for reckless driving resulting in death, reflecting societal responsibility.
The judgment emphasizes the need for evidence to prove rash and negligent driving, and the limited scope of the revision court in re-appreciating 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
