The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove in a rash and negligent manner to secure a conviction under IPC sections 279 and 304(A); insufficient evidence can lead to an acquittal.

ORDER :

S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.

1. Accused is before this Court in this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 02.01.2016 passed in CC No.241/2013 by the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote and the judgment and order dated 03.04.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.3/2016 by the Court of VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Petitioner herein was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC and Sections 6(2) and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in CC No.241/2013 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote. It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.12.2012 at about 02:55 p. m. near Beereshwara Kalyana Mantapa, Sulibele, on NH-207, the petitioner, who is a driver in BMTC, drove the bus bearing registration No.KA01/F3462 in a rash and negligent manner and as a result, Smt. Munithayamma, who was travelling in the bus, fell down and came under the rear wheel of the bus and sustained injuries. She, subsequently, died in the Hospital while undergoing treatment. Petitioner, who had appeared before the Trial Court in response to the summons received by him in CC No.241/2013 had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its charges against the petitioner had in all examined eight charge sheet witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and had got marked seven documents as Ex.P1 to P7. In support of the defence, no evidence was led nor was any documents got marked. The Trial Court, after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. had heard the arguments addressed on both sides and vide the impugned judgment and order dated 02.01.2016 had acquitted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and convicted and sentenced him for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in Crl.A.No.3/2016 by the Court of VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Benglauru, vide judgment and order dated 03.04.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioner was driving the offending bus in a rash and negligent manner. He submits that deceased Munithayamma was sitting on the foot board of the offending bus and she had lost control and had fallen down and petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. The prosecution has not examined any other inmates of the bus except the Conductor (PW2) to prove that petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and as a result, the deceased who was travelling in the bus had lost control and fallen down. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Aynuddin alias Miyam vs. State of Andhra Pradesh - AIR 2000 SC 2511 in support of his arguments.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and submits that evidence of PW3 and PW4 conclusively proves that petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and accident in question had taken place as a result of the same. He, accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.

6. The prosecution in order to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner has examined eight charge sheet witnesses as PW1 to PW8 before the Trial Court. PW1 Ramesha, son of deceased