Conviction under IPC sections for rash driving requires cogent evidence; failure to substantiate claims leads to acquittal.

ORDER :

(G. BASAVARAJA, J.)

The petitioner has preferred this petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Channagiri in CC.No.30/2014 dated 13.08.2014, which is confirmed in Crl.A.No.107/2014, on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davangere, dated 20.09.2016.

2. The parties are referred as per the rankings of the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are that, the Circle Inspector of Police, Channagiri, has laid a charge sheet against the accused for offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 23.05.2012 at about 9.30 p.m., near Doddaghatta Village, Channagiri, Davangere road, the accused being a driver of the Tractor Trailer bearing registration No.KA-17/TA-575 and KA-17/TA-576, has taken CW1 and CW2 and one Bhimanaik S/o. Sevyanaik for bringing fertilizers from Davangere. Bhimanaik was sitting on the engine mudguard. The accused drove the said Tractor and Trailer in a rash and negligent manner while coming from Tyavanagi. When they came near the lands of Pujar Halappa of Doddaghatta Village, Bhimanaik fell down and the rear wheel of the trailer rammed Bhimanaik suffering injury and he died on his way to the hospital and thereby the accused has committed the alleged offences.

4. After filing the charge sheet, the jurisdictional magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused for the alleged offences and the case was registered in CC.No.30/2014. The substance of plea was recorded, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the case of the prosecution, in all 7 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW7, 9 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. Accused has denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him, however, he has not adduced any evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC and passed the sentence. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davangere in Crl.A.No.107/2014, and the same came to be dismissed on 28.09.2016. Being aggrieved by the judgment of both Courts, the accused has filed this revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that absolutely there is no evidence to prove the offences under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC.

7. Though there are no independent witnesses, trial Court has convicted the accused without any substantial evidence to show that the driver of the tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner. Further, he would submit that in Ex.P1-complaint the tractor number is shown as KA-17/TA-4575 and trailer number is shown as KA-17/TA-4576, whereas at the time of filing the charge sheet the tractor bearing registration No.KA17/TA- 575 and trailer number KA17/TA-576 is inserted for the reason that the tractor bearing No.KA-17/TA-4575 and KA-17/TA-4576, has no insurance as on the date of the accident and only to get claim as to the death of deceased, the tractor bearing No.KA-17/TA-575 and trailer number KA-17/TA-576 has been falsely implicated. The investigating officer has not explained anything in this regard. However, both Courts have failed to appreciate this fact and failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts, on all these grounds sought to allow the appeal. To substantiate his arguments he has relied on the following d