Negligent driving under the influence of alcohol resulting in death leads to conviction under relevant IPC and IMV Act sections.

ORDER :

S RACHAIAH, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 28.04.2017 in C.C.No.238/2015 on the file of the JMFC (III Court), Mangaluru, D.K. and its confirmation judgment and order dated 07.11.2017 in Crl.A.No.83/2017 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.

2. The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience.

Factual matrix of the case:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.09.2014 at about 6.05 p.m., the accused being the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-19-D-5293, drove the same from Mangalore towards Surthkal on NH-66 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the hind side of the car bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-0425. Due to the said impact, the car driven by C.W.6 was dashed to the hind side of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-19-C-8783 which was driven by C.W.2. Due to the said accident, C.W.6 sustained simple injuries and one Smt. Sumithra Prabhu who was inmate of the car had sustained grievous injuries and other two inmates of the car i.e., C.Ws.4 and 5 were sustained simple injuries. The injured were shifted to Ullal General Hospital. Later, the injured Sumitra Prabhu was shifted to Dr. N.R.Acharya Memorial General Hospital, Kundapur, however, she succumbed to the injuries at the hospital on 23.09.2014. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered against the accused. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.47/14 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337 and 304(A) of IPC and Sections 3(1) read with 181 and 185 of IMV Act.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 12 witnesses as PWs.1 to 12 and got marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to P20. The Trial Court recorded the conviction for the above said offenses. In an appeal, the Appellate Court partly allowed the judgment of the Trial Court and set aside the sentence in respect of section 304(A) of IPC. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this revision petition.

5. Heard Sri. Sandesh Shetty T., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the concurrent findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction against the accused are perverse, illegal and contrary to the evidence on record and also opposed to the facts and law.

7. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would indicate that there was no negligence on the part of the vehicle of the accused. However, the evidence of C.Ws.4 to 5, even they have supported the case of the prosecution being inmates of the vehicle which was driven by C.W.6, the fact remains that, they are interested witnesses and close relative of the deceased. Unless, the prosecution proves that the petitioner was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, conviction in respect of aforesaid offences cannot be sustained. However, the Courts below have committed grave error in recording the conviction. Therefore, the impugned judgments are required to be set aside. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the revision petition.

8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State vehemently justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below and he further submitted that the concurrent findings of the Courts below are proper and appropriate. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are the conductor and dri