Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 5736
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J
Praveen Basavaraj Mamdapur – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100128 OF 2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. ASHOK. A. NAIK, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases of alleged negligent driving; insufficient evidence led to acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 304A - Revision petition against conviction and sentence for causing death by negligent driving - The accused was convicted for driving a vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the death of a pedestrian - The trial court's conviction was upheld by the appellate court - The accused challenged the findings, arguing lack of evidence for negligence - The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused. (Paras 1-19)
(B) Burden of Proof - It is the prosecution's duty to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving allegations of rashness and negligence. (Paras 11-12)
Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with causing the death of a pedestrian while driving a car in a high-speed and negligent manner. The deceased was standing by the roadside when the accident occurred. The trial court found the accused guilty based on witness testimonies and evidence presented.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the accused's guilt for the charges under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.
Issues: The main issues were whether the accused was driving rashly and negligently and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove the accused's negligence and that the evidence presented did not convincingly establish this, leading to the conclusion that the accused was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Result: Revision petition allowed; the accused acquitted of charges.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
Revision petition is directed against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.09.2015 passed in CC No.496/2013 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sankeshwar, confirmed in Crl.A No.154/2015 vide judgement dated 26.12.2017 by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, (sitting at Chikodi).
2. The parties to this revision petition are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The brief relevant facts as set out in the FIR are as under:
That the accused was charge sheeted by the Circle Inspector of Hukkeri for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC . It is a case of the prosecution that on 05.05.2013 at 4:45 PM, the accused being the driver of a Car bearing registration No.KA-22/P- 9992 coming from Belagavi towards Nipani was driving the said vehicle in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, when he came near Sollapur village within the jurisdiction of Sankeshwar Police Station, endangering human life dashed to deceased Santaram Jyoteppa Malagi who was standing by the side of the road and because of that impact he sustained grievous injuries on his head, feet and other parts of the body. He was shifted to the Hospital for treatment but, died in the Hospital because of accidental injuries. With regard to this accident, crime was registered at Sankeshwar Police Station under Crime No.176/2013 and the criminal law was set in motion. The Investigation Officer on completion of the investigation, filed a chargesheet, during the crime stage itself the accused was enlarged on bail. After filing the chargesheet, the jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and copies of the Police papers were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court recorded a plea against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC read over and explain the same to the accused in Kannada in the language known to him. He pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.
4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined 11 witnesses as PW.1 to 11 and got marked 12 documents at Ex.P.1 to 12 and closed prosecution evidence. Thereafter, accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C so as to enable him to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. He denied his complicity in the crime and did not chose to lead any defence evidence.
5. The learned trial Court on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, found the accused guilty of committing the offence under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and sentenced him as under:
“The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Sec.279 of Indian Penal Code.
The accused shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also pay fine of Rs.2,500/- for the offence punishable under Sec.304A of Indian Penal Code.
In default to pay the fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month.
The substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.”
6. The judgement of a conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court was challenged by the accused before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi [sitting at Chikodi] by preferring Criminal Appeal No.154/2017. The First Appellate Court on hearing the arguments and on re-appreciation of the evidence, confirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court.
7. It is how, now the accused is before this Court challenging the impugned judgements of the Courts below.
8. The learned counsel for the accused Sri.Ashok A. Naik submits that both the Courts below have committed illegality in appreciating the evidence. He would submit that without properly appreciating the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, the C
