Conviction for traffic offences requires clear evidence of rashness, not merely high-speed driving; evidence of contributory negligence undermines charges under IPC.

ORDER :

1. Challenging judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed by III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at Srirangapatna), in Crl.A.no.5023/2020 confirming judgment dated 15.02.2020 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna, in CC.no.01/2016, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri KL Sreenivas, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, case of prosecution was, at about 9:00 a.m., on 20.06.2015, when Anil Kumar (complainant) was riding his motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-11-X-8703 along with his uncle, Vasanthkumar as pillion rider from Pandavapura towards Srirangapatna, Saleem (accused) rode his motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-04-EU-7548 in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life leading to collision between two motorcycles in which accident Anil Kumar and Vasanthkumar sustained severe injuries. They were taken to Colombia Asia Hospital, Mysuru, but Vasanthkumar succumbed to injuries. It was alleged, accused ran away from spot and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for short). Based on complaint filed Crime no.350/2015 was registered by Srirangapatna Police Station. And after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

3. On appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P19. Thereafter, incriminating material was explained to accused which he denied, his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. It was submitted, accused was innocent and had not committed any of offences alleged. It was further submitted, prosecution had failed to establish commission of offences beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted, material on record was insufficient for convicting accused.

4. It was submitted, there was no dispute about occurrence of accident leading to death of Vasanthkumar and both, PW.1 (complainant) and PW.2 (eye-witness) merely stated about occurrence of accident due to accused riding his motorcycle in high speed. It was submitted, they also admitted absence of any cross roads for 100 feet on either side of accident spot.

5. PWs.3 and 5 - pillion riders on motorcycle of accused stated that accident occurred when complainant suddenly turned his motorcycle towards right side and accident was due to negligence of complainant. Despite being treated as hostile and cross-examined, nothing material was elicited from them.

6. Further, PWs.4 and 6 are pancha witnesses, who stated that they were present at time of drawing spot mahazar and accident spot sketch marked as Exs.P2 and Ex.P6. Even they admitted that there was no road divider or turning near accident spot. Further, PWs.7 and 8 merely stated that they were owners of motorcycles involved in accident. PW.8 stated that accused was riding his motorcycle at time of accident.

7. It was submitted, deposition of PWs.9 and 11 - Investigating Officers was about conduct of investigation after receipt of complaint about accident, registration of FIR, its forwarding to Court, recording of statements of witnesses and filing of charge sheet etc. It was submitted, their deposition also would not be of much assistance as they did not state basis for alleging occurrence of accident was due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by accused. Further PW.10 - Motor Vehicle Inspector merely stated about examining vehicles involved in accident and noting damages sustained by them mentioned in Ex.P17. In cross-examination, he stated that he did n