Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 884
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
G BASAVARAJA, J
SRI SHIVAKUMARASWAMY – Appellant
Versus
STATE BY RT NAGAR TRAFFIC POLICE – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 392 OF 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. G.V.DAYANANDA
For the Respondents: SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA
The absence of sufficient corroborative evidence to connect the accused as the driver results in the acquittal of negligence-related charges.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 304A - Criminal Revision Petition - Accused charged with negligence resulting in death - Conviction set aside due to lack of evidence linking accused to the crime - Investigating Officer failed to substantiate case - Benefit of doubt granted to accused, who was not conclusively identified as driver. (Paras 21, 22)
(B) Evidence - Importance of corroborative evidence - The prosecution must establish not only negligence but also a direct link between the accused's actions and the victim's death. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with causing death through negligent driving after a bus he was purportedly driving collided with a scooter, resulting in a fatality. However, testimonies revealed insufficient evidence to prove the accused was the driver, as critical witnesses recanted or were not present.
Findings of Court:
The court determined insufficient corroborative evidence and the lack of solid identification of the accused as the driver led to the conclusion that the conviction was unfounded.
Issues: The core issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the accused was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment hinges on the requirement for the prosecution to provide compelling, corroborative evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, particularly in fatal accident cases. The courts below had failed to appreciate evidence accordingly.
Result: Criminal revision petition is allowed, and the accused is acquitted of the charges.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused's involvement in the accident lacks clear evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. lack of identification and supporting evidence undermines prosecution case. (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. prosecution must clearly establish negligence and link accused to the incident. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 4. conviction set aside due to insufficient evidence. (Para 23) |
ORDER
This revision petitioner has filed this petition under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.02.2012 passed in C.C.No.2190/2010 on the file of MMTC-III, Bangalore and also set aside the judgment dated 13.05.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-XV, Bangalore, in Crl.A.No.141/2012.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the trial court for the sake of convenience.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that:
That on 17.11.2010 at about 12.20 p.m. within the jurisdiction of R.T.Nagar Traffic Police Station the accused being the driver of private bus bearing No.KA-43-4569 drove the same in a high speed in front of Manoranjan Theatre on Bangalore - Bellary Road in rash and negligent manner from Mekri Circle towards Hebbal and dashed against the scooter bearing registration No.KA-50-J-6631. As a result, the pillion rider of the scooter - M.Muralidhar fell down and at that time, back wheel of the bus ran over him. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries. Thereby accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC.
4. After filing the charge sheet, case was registered against the accused in C.C.No.2190/2010 on the file of MMTC-III Court, Bangalore. In pursuance of summons, the accused appeared before the trial court and enlarged on bail. The substance of plea is recorded under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. Same is read over and explained to the accused. Accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the case of prosecution, 10 witnesses have been examined as PW-1 to PW-10 and 12 documents were got marked as Exs.P-1 to P-12. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. Accused has totally denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him, but he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
6. On hearing the arguments, trial court has convicted the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. Being aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the trial court, accused has preferred an appeal before the Fast Track Court-XV Court, Bangalore, in Crl.A.No.141/2012, which came to be dismissed on 13.05.2014. Being aggrieved by impugned judgments, the accused has preferred this revision petition.
7. Sri.G.V.Dayananda, learned counsel appearing for the accused has submitted his arguments that:
7.1 Trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. He further submitted that PW-1- Jeevan, who was rider of the motorcycle was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and the age of PW-1 is shown as 18 years. During the course of cross- examination of PW-1, he has clearly stated that he was having driving licence, but the same was missing. Admittedly, the age of PW-1 is below 18 years at the relevant point of time. Hence, it is crystal clear that PW-1 was not having driving licence.
7.2 The prosecution has not examined the Investigating Officer to prove the case of prosecution and the Investigating Officer has not offered any explanation as to non-production of driving licence of PW-1. Except PW-1, there are no other eyewitnesses to the accident. He further submits that PW-3 is a hearsay witness. The accident occurred is not due to the fault on the part of petitioner/accused. The Investigating Officer without properly investigating the case has filed the charge sheet against the accused, which is not sustainable in law.
8. As against this, learned HCGP has argued that both the Courts have properl
