Negligence was established despite some hostile eyewitnesses; the accused's failure to present a plausible defense led to the affirmation of conviction under IPC sections on rash driving and causing death.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri Sanjay A. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

2. Appellant is the accused, who stood for the trial for the offences under Sections 279 and 304 of IPC. After due trial, he was convicted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and sentenced as under:

“Accused is hereby sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for period of one year and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment of one month. The period of detention during crime stage shall be given set off as provided U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

The bail bond of accused and that off surety stands cancelled.”

3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

3.1. An accident occurred on 11.08.2015 at about 04-00 p.m., wherein accused being the driver of a Bolero Jeep bearing registration No.KA 38/7564 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from Bidar Fire station road towards Gadgi village with a full knowledge that driving of the vehicle in such manner may result in accidental death of a person; when offending vehicle reached near water tank near bus stand because of his rash and negligent driving, he dashed against a boy by name, Furkhan S/o Faruq, aged about 7 years, causing fatal injuries, resulting in his death.

3.2. The way in which the incident has occurred was reported and the jurisdictional police registered FIR for the offences under Sections 279 and 304 of IPC.

3.3. After thorough investigation, charge sheet also came to be filed for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.

4. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance and committed the matter in view of the fact that the offence alleged against the accused under Section 304 of IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

5. Learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused and registered the case in S.C.No.169/2016 and framed the charges for the offences under Sections 279 , 304A and 304 of IPC after securing the presence of the accused.

6. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.

7. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined thirteen witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and placed on record eight documents which are exhibited and marked as Exhibit P.1 to P.18 comprising complaint, spot mahazar, photographs of the offending vehicle, inquest mahazar, post mortem report, sketch map of spot mahazar, motor vehicle report, photos of the deceased and FIR.

8. On conclusion of recording of evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory material found in the case of the prosecution but failed to place on record his version about the incident either orally or in writing as is contemplated under Section 313 (4) of Cr.P.C.

9. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by impugned judgment, convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and sentenced as referred to supra.

10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:

• The impugned Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law and facts of the case. Thus the Judgment of conviction is contrary to materials available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses and thus has erroneously convicted the appellant/accused.

• The Trial Court failed in noticing the fact that, the so called eyewitnesses namely; PW.2 and PW.3