Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 5626
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J
Channappa Dalabanjan S/o. Antoni Dalabanjan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100016 OF 2018
For the Appellant :MISS. NIRMALA DODAMANI, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SMT. MALA BHUTE, AGA
The prosecution failed to prove the accused's rash and negligent driving, leading to the acquittal of charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, and 304A.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337, and 304A - Revision petition against conviction and sentence for rash and negligent driving resulting in death - The accused was found guilty by the trial court and the conviction was upheld by the appellate court - The prosecution alleged that the accused drove a school bus in a rash manner, causing the death of a pedestrian - The defense argued that the deceased was walking on the road and contributed to the accident - The court found inconsistencies in witness testimonies and determined that the prosecution failed to prove rashness or negligence - The judgments of both lower courts were deemed perverse due to improper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 12, 26, 27)
(B) Burden of proof - The prosecution bears the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, which was not met in this case. (Paras 14, 27)
Facts of the case:
The accused, while driving a school bus, allegedly struck a pedestrian, resulting in her death after treatment. The trial court convicted the accused, which was upheld by the appellate court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence did not support the claim of rash and negligent driving, leading to the conclusion that the accused was not guilty.
Issues: The main issue was whether the judgments of the lower courts suffered from any perversity or improper appreciation of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence presented did not establish the accused's rash and negligent driving, and the inconsistencies in witness statements undermined the prosecution's case.
Result: The revision petition is allowed, and the accused is acquitted of all charges.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.11.2011 passed in CC No.21/2011 by the Principal Civil Judge JMFC, Bagalkot, (for short ‘the trial Court’) and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.84/2011, vide judgment dated 07.11.2017 by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, (for short, ‘the First Appellate Court’),
2. Parties to this revision petition are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for convenience.
3. It is the case of the prosecution, that on 27.10.2010, accused being the driver of a Bagalkot Lions School Bus bearing registration No.KA-29/6444 at 9.30 am, was proceeding from Sector 18 of Navanagar, Bagalkot, towards Sector No.3 of the said area by driving his vehicle in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and at that time, Bismillah being the wife of the brother of the complainant who was proceeding on the road along with six month’s baby, this accused dashed to her from her back side. She fell down and sustained simple and grievous injuries. But, during her treatment, she succumbed to injuries. To that effect, a complaint was lodged before the Bagalkot Traffic PS, which was registered in Crime No.76/2010 and criminal law was set in motion. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337 , 304A of IPC by the Bagalkot Traffic PS.
4. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate, took the cognizance of the offences. The presence of the accused was secured and he was enlarged on bail.
5. Substance of accusation was framed and read over to the accused in Kannada for the aforesaid offences, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. Before the trial Court, to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution, in all examined 9 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to P.Ws.9 and got marked documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.10 and closed the prosecution evidence. During the course of cross-examination, DW1 and DW2 were marked on behalf of the defence.
7. The learned trial Court, on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence placed on record, found the accused guilty and sentenced him as under:
(a) “For the offence punishable u/Sec.279 of Indian Penal Code , an accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days and shall liable to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-(one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
(b) For the offence punishable u/Sec.337 of Indian Penal Code , an accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days and shall liable to pay fine of Rs.500/-(five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
(c) For the offence punishable u/Sec.304(A) of Indian Penal Code , an accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months and shall liable to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-(three thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days.
All sentences shall run concurrently.”
8. This judgment of conviction and order of sentence was challenged by the accused/revision petitioner before the First Appellate Court by filing Criminal Appeal No.84/2011 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot. The First Appellate Court, on hearing the arguments and on re-evaluation of the evidence, dismissed the said appeal vide judgment and order dated 07.11.2017 and thereby confirmed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court. This is how the accused-petitioner is now before this Court in this revision petition challenging the impugned judgments of both the Courts below.
9. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, Ms. Nirmala Dodmani, submits, that the evidence spoken to by the witnesses do suggest that the deceased was moving on the road itself and there was no negligence on the part of th
