Back
2024 Supreme(Kar) 1315
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.
Sri M.K. Narasimhaiah @ Narasimhan, S/o. Kuppuswamy @ Kuppuswamy Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State By Peenya Traffic Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 961 of 2012
Decided On : 04-03-2024
For the Appellant :Sri. Raghavendra K., Advocate.
For the Respondent: Sri. Rajath Subramanya, HCGP.
Negligent driving resulting in injury and death constitutes a breach of criminal duty under Section 304(A) IPC, emphasizing the driver's responsibility for safe transportation of hazardous loads.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304(A) - Conviction for rash and negligent driving leading to death and injury - The appellant was convicted for driving a lorry loaded with projecting iron plates causing an accident resulting in three deaths and injuries to others - Court confirmed the conviction based on eyewitness accounts of negligent driving and the absence of safety measures for the load. (Paras 2, 22)
(B) Negligence - The court held that the driver failed to take reasonable precautions while operating a vehicle with hazardous cargo, attributing criminal liability under Section 304(A) IPC. (Paras 21 and 24)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, as the driver, was involved in an accident on 12.05.2010 causing multiple injuries and fatalities due to reckless driving of a lorry loaded with iron plates extending outside the vehicle without adequate safety measures.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction of the appellant was found justified based on the comprehensive evidence presented regarding the appellant's negligence.
Issues: The court addressed whether the evidence sufficed to affirm the charges against the appellant and whether alternatives in the evidence warranted reconsideration of culpability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the appellant's failure to ensure safe transportation of the load constituted a criminal breach of duty, affirming that negligence was established beyond reasonable doubt based on witness corroboration.
Result: Appeal allowed in part; conviction upheld; sentence modified to six months.
JUDGMENT :
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.
This appeal is preferred by accused No.1, feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 13.06.2012 passed by the Court of Presiding Officer, Fast Track (Sessions) Court, XVII Bengaluru City in Sessions Case No.1341/2010.
2. Vide impugned judgment , the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant/accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 279 , 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC and acquitted accused No.2 of the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC.
3. Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the evidence and material on record.
4. It is the case of prosecution that on 12.05.2010 at about 10.30 p.m., appellant/accused No.1 being the driver of a lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01-A-2169 drove the said lorry loaded with iron plates projecting 5 ft outside its body on both sides, in a rash and negligent manner and hit against an oncoming Maxi Cab bearing Registration No.KA-05-A-6396, opposite Sunakthi Solar Energy System Private Limited at 4th Phase, Peenya Industrial Estate, on account of which, the inmates of Maxi Cab sustained injuries and out of them three passengers by name Girish, Natraj and Gowramma died on the spot.
5. It is the further case of prosecution that accused No.2 being the owner of the lorry has loaded the big iron plates in the said lorry which was projecting more than 5 ft. on both the sides and 5 ft. from the back side, without taking any precautionary measures.
6. Charges were framed against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 279 , 337, 338 of IPC and against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC.
7. The prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses and got marked 18 documents to establish its case. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to hold that no criminal act can be attributed against accused No.2 for want of concrete evidence and further held that the offence committed by accused No.1 would attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 304 (A) of IPC and not 304 of IPC.
8. The learned counsel for appellant has contended that the evidence on record is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the offence for which he has been convicted by the trial Court. He contends that there are two versions with regard to the accident in question and two views are possible and therefore, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. Pointing out to the wound certificates of two of the injured namely PW.3 and PW.8, which are marked as Exs.P8 and P7 respectively, he has contended that the history furnished in the said documents is that the tempo suddenly hit a canter goods carrier vehicle which was parked on the road. He has therefore contended that the said history furnished at the earliest point of time would reveal that the lorry in question was parked on the road and the accused was not driving the said lorry and therefore, he cannot be held responsible for the accident. Drawing the attention of the Court to the evidence of PW8, one of the passengers in the maxi cab, the learned counsel has contended that according to the said witness, the accident was on account of the fault of tempo driver. It is further contended that the appellant is only a driver of the lorry and he has not loaded the iron plates and therefore, merely because he was driving the lorry loaded with iron plates, even admitting that the said iron plates were projecting out of the lorry, it cannot be held that he was rash or negligent in driving the said vehicle. He has contended that none of the witnesses have stated that the lorry was being driven in a rash manner. Hence, he contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maxi Cab. He contends that the trial Court without properly appreciating the above aspects has erroneously convicted the appellant.
9. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has
