The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving leading to death, affirming the legal principle that the accused must explain incriminating circumstances, failure to do so supports conviction.

ORDER :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri Naushad Pasha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State.

2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.340/2009, on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Srinivaspur, confirmed in Crl.A.No.35/2012, on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, has preferred the present revision petition.

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

A complaint came to be lodged stating that on 03.10.2009 at about 7.45 a.m., at Bayyappalli cross, revision petitioner being the driver of the bus bearing No.KA01-A-7285, drove the same from Addagal to Gownipalli in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle bearing No.KA07-K-1411, whereby the rider of the motorcycle namely; Sudhakara Reddy, sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the next day in the hospital.

4. Police registered the case under Section 279 and 304-A IPC against the driver of the bus and conducted a detailed investigation and filed charge sheet.

5. Accused was summoned before the Court after taking cognizance and plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.

6. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, in all twelve witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 12. Twelve documents were also placed on record on behalf of the prosecution as Exs.P.1 to P.12.

7. In the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 3 there were few contradictions elicited which would tried to suggest that they were not eye witnesses to the incident and they have deposed falsely.

8. Post Mortem report, inquest report, IMV report, mahazar, sketch, depict the nature of accident and injuries sustained by the deceased. There is not much dispute with regard to them.

9. On conclusion of recording of the evidence of the prosecution, accused statement as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein accused has denied all the incriminating circumstances including the accident.

10. Thereafter, trial Magistrate heard the parties and convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and awarded one year simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.

11. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.35/2012. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, and hearing the parties in detail, confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter revision petitioner is before this Court.

12. Sri Naushad Pasha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material contradictions elicited in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and has mechanically convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition.

13. He also pointed out that the place of the incident is a curved road and P.W.1 and 3 have admitted that the movement of traffic including offending bus was not so fast so as to endanger the human life and there is no proper visibility of opposite vehicles having regard to the curved road near the place of the incident, which has been totally ignored by the Trial Magistrate and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court and sought for allowing the revision pe