IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving resulting in death and injuries, affirming the sufficiency of eyewitness testimony.

ORDER :

Ms. J.M. Khazi, J. - In this petition filed under Section 397, r/w 401 Cr.P.C, petitioner who is accused before the trial Court has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of I.P.C r/w Section 134 (B), 184 and 187 of IMV Act imposed by the trial Court, which came to be confirmed by the Sessions Court by dismissing the appeal filed by him.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

3. The allegations against accused are that on 8.7.2011 at 8:45 a.m, at NR Circle, Hassan, accused being the driver of lorry bearing registration No.KA 13-3054 ('offending vehicle' for short), drove the same in a rash or negligent manner from N.R Circle towards Channarayapatna side and dashed against TVS XL motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13-K-6394, which was ridden by Rajannachari, thereafter dashed against motorcycle bearing registration number KA-13-V-6616 driven by Manohar @ Venu with pillion rider Jayalaxmi and thereafter against autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-13-A-7936. In the said accident, Rajannachari, Manohar @ Venu, Jayalakshmi, Ravichandra, Dushyant Kumar, sustained simple and grievous injuries. Manohar @ Venu and Rajannachari died while undergoing treatment and thereby accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of I.P.C and Sections 134(B) r/w 184 and 187 of IMV Act.

4. Accused plead not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to bring home guilt to the accused, prosecution examined in all 15 witnesses as PW-1 to 15 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 24.

6. During the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused has denied the incriminating evidence.

7. He has not led any defence evidence.

8. Vide the impugned judgment and order the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him as under:

"To undergo S.I for a period of one month with fine of Rs. 600/- for the offence p/u/s 279 of I.P.C r/w Section 184 of IMV Act. In default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 5 days.

To undergo S.I. for a period of one month with fine of Rs. 300/- for the offence p/u/s 337 of I.P.C. In default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 3 days.

To undergo S.I. for a period of three months with fine of Rs. 600/- for the offence p/u/s 338 of I.P.C. In default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 5 days.

To undergo S.I. for a period of one month with fine of Rs. 300/- for the offence p/u/s 187 r/w Section 134(B) of IMV Act. In default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for three days.

To undergo S.I. for a period of six months with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence p/u/s 304-A of I.P.C. In default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for one month."

9. Aggrieved by the same accused filed appeal before the Sessions Court. However, Sessions Court dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment and order of the trial Court.

10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused has filed this petition contending that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are totally opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case and as such liable to be set aside. The Courts below have failed to consider the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. The impugned judgment and order of the trial Court and Sessions Court are based on interested testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The omission and contradictions are also not taken into consideration by them. They have erred in not extending benefit of doubt to the accused. Viewed from any angle, the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court and Sessions court are not sustainable and pray to set aside the same.

11. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader supported the impugned judgment and order of trial Court and Sessions Court and sought for dismissal of the petition.

12. Heard elaborate arguments of both sides and perused the record.

13. Among the witnesses examined for the prosecution, PW-1, 4, 6 and 8 are the eye