Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 20435
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA, J
RAGHU K – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.RP 443/2020
SRI. HARISH B.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASAD .B.S., ADVOCATE; SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP
Prosecution must prove the accused's rash and negligent act beyond a reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279 and 304A - Revision petition against conviction for rash and negligent driving resulting in death - Prosecution failed to prove the accused's rashness or negligence as witnesses did not support the case - Both Trial and Appellate Courts did not appreciate evidence correctly. (Paras 3-4, 12-19)
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt - Failure to establish the accused's guilt leads to acquittal. (Paras 17-18)
Facts of the case:
The accused and the deceased were on a motorcycle when the accused lost control and crashed into an electric pole, resulting in the death of the deceased. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitnesses, but their testimonies did not establish the accused's rashness or negligence.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution did not prove the rash and negligent act of the accused, leading to the conclusion that the accused was not guilty of the charges.
Issues: Whether the revision petitioner established grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts found no material evidence supporting the prosecution's claims, and the accused's defense was not sufficiently challenged.
Result: Criminal revision petition allowed; judgments of the Trial and Appellate Courts set aside; accused acquitted.
This revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 01.07.2019 passed in C.C.No.100/2018 by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) which is confirmed by the judgment dated 10.12.2019 passed in Crl.Appeal No.5013/2019 by the Court of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, sitting at Bhadravathi (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision petition are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that on 02.07.2017 at about 11.30 a.m., the accused and deceased were proceeding in a bike bearing No.KA-14/EN- 4837 belong to the accused from H.K. Junction towards B.R.P., and while they were so proceeding near Tammadihalli village cross, at that time, the accused drove the said bike in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over bike and dashed against the electric pole which was beside the road. As a result of which, the deceased Sridhar V. Pai who was pillion rider, fell and sustained injuries all over his body. Immediately the injured was shifted to Nanjappa hospital, Shivamogga and inspite of giving treatment, he succumbed to the injuries.
Thus, the accused has committed offences punishable under Section 279, 304A of Indian Penal Code .
4. After filing of charge sheet, the case was registered in C.C.No.100/2018 and summons was issued to the accused and in response to summons, the accused appeared before the Court and enlarged on bail and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the case of prosecution, eight witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 8 and nineteen documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P19. Accused has denied the evidence of prosecution and did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 279 and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default to pay fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. Further, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default to pay fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused has preferred an appeal before the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga in Crl. Appeal No.5013/2019 and the same came to be dismissed on 10.12.2019. Being aggrieved by the judgment of both the Courts, the accused has preferred this revision petition.
Submission of learned counsel for revision petitioner:
6. Learned counsel for revision petitioner has vehemently submitted that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. The prosecution has failed to place the material on record to attract the ingredients of Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code . PW.1 is alleged to be complainant and has given the complaint as per Ex.P1 wherein he clearly admitted in his cross examination that he has not written the complaint and did not know the contents of complaint at Ex.P1. Further, he clearly admits that he has not seen the accident. PW.3 is another witness clearly deposed that he has not witnessed the accident. PWs.4 and 5 are the other eye witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have clearly observed that the prosecution witnesses have not deposed as to the rash and negligent act on the part of accused. However, both the Courts have observed that since the accused has not disputed the contents of mahazar and rough sketch.
7. Further, he submits that the Appellate Court observed that if the road was slippery due to heavy rain because of that the vehicle wa
