Back
2014 Supreme(MP) 1665
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S. J. Mukhopadhaya, Kurian Joseph, JJ.
Basappa – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 512 of 2014
Decided On : 27-02-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Anil V. Katarki, Ms. E. R. Sumathy, Anil Nishant
For the Respondent: V. N. Raghupathy, Ms. Kusum, R. S. Rathi
The appellate court can review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded, but interference should be rare and only if the judgment of the trial court is found to be perverse or based on no material.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Accused - Sections 279, 304-A - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 187, 196
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was charged under sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sections 187 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act for an accident resulting in the death of a child. The trial court acquitted the accused due to doubts about his involvement, but the High Court convicted him under sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and convicted the appellant under sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, while acquitting him under sections 187 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court was justified in re-appreciating the evidence and reversing the order of acquittal merely because of a possibility of another view.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court can review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded, but interference should be rare and only if the judgment of the trial court is found to be perverse or based on no material. The appellate court should not reverse the acquittal merely because another view is possible on the evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned Judgment was set aside, and the trial court's decision was restored.
JUDGMENT :
KURIAN JOSEPH, J.
Leave granted.
2. Appellant is the accused in C.C. No. 707 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Hubli, Karnataka. He was charge-sheeted under sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sections 187 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act'). The accident occurred on 11-2-2004 at 02.30 P.M. when the appellant was allegedly driving a tractor with a trailer. The vehicle hit against a scooty and resultantly a two year old child travelling in the scooty fell down. The tractor ran over the child and she succumbed to the injury. PWs 1 to 11 were examined and seven documents were marked on the prosecution side. Two documents were marked on the side of the accused. The learned Magistrate, after elaborately discussing the evidence, came to the following conclusion at paragraph-22 of the Judgment dated 25-5-2005:
"22. Perused the evidence of PW-1 to 11 and the case file after perusal of the same, it creates doubt whether this accused was the driver at the relevant point of time or not, so also to say that the accident was happened due to the rash and negligent act of this accused, as there is no any cogent, impeachable and clinching evidence with respect to the ingredients of alleged offences. Further in view of these types of discrepancies of the prosecution witnesses case is not beyond doubt. Had the prosecution able to explain clearly the above said doubtful circumstances, then certainly this Court could have believed the evidence of the material witnesses but now the doubtful evidence and circumstances are not cleared. Hence I am not accepting the stand taken by the learned APP. Therefore in view of the so many discrepancies in the versions deposed before the Court and one given before the police, it creates doubt whether this accused was involved in the commission of offences or not. Therefore, I feel accused is entitled for acquittal." (Emphasis supplied)
3. We are informed that the accused was on bail during the trial but remained in custody for five months and five days during investigation.
4. The State filed appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'). The High Court re-appreciated the whole evidence and came to the conclusion that the appellant was liable to be convicted under sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Further, it was held that "the prosecution has failed to prove the offences under section 187 and 197 of the MV Act". Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs. 2,000/- under section 304-A and for three months with fine of Rs. 500/- under section 279 of Indian Penal Code. A default sentence was also given. The sentences were to run concurrently. Thus aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court.
5. Section 197 of the MV Act deals with unauthorized driving of a motor vehicle. Section 187 of the MV Act reads as follows :
"187. Punishment for offences relating to accident. - Whoever fails to comply with the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 132 or of section 133 or section 134 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both or, if having been previously convicted of an offence under this section, he is again convicted of an offence under this section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
Section 132(1)(c) of the MV Act was omitted w.e.f. 14-11-1994. Section 133 deals with duty of the driver, owner or conductor to furnish information on demand. There is no such case for the prosecution. Therefore, the alleged offence could only be non-compliance of section 134, which reads as under :
"134. Duty of driver in case of
