Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 10812
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
RAJESH RAI K J
SERIL VEGUS S/O LATE ANTHONI VEGUS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE BY NARASIMHARAJA TRAFFIC POLICE STATION – Respondent
CRL.RP 295 / 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUEIRA
For the Respondents: SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA
A driver cannot be held liable for negligence if unaware of a defect in the vehicle that causes an accident, as established in the case.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 304-A - Conviction for rash and negligent driving leading to death - The trial court convicted the accused for causing the death of a pedestrian due to negligence while driving a KSRTC bus. The First Appellate Court confirmed the conviction. (Paras 1, 12)
(B) Negligence - The court examined whether the driver was negligent in operating the bus; evidence indicated the luggage door opened unexpectedly, leading to the accident. The court found that the driver was not aware of the condition of the luggage door, which was improperly secured by depot officers. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for causing the death of a pedestrian due to a luggage box door that opened while driving. The accident occurred on 30.04.2012, and the deceased succumbed to injuries the following day. (Paras 2, 12)
Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction was set aside, ruling that the driver was not responsible for the accident as he was unaware of the luggage door's condition. (Paras 13)
Issues: The main issue was whether the First Appellate Court was justified in confirming the conviction based on the evidence presented. (Para 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the driver could not be held liable for negligence when he had no knowledge of the luggage door's faulty condition, which was the cause of the accident. (Paras 12, 13)
Result: The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed, and the accused is acquitted of the charges.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding negligence and evidence assessment. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's analysis of negligence and evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. final order of acquittal and setting aside previous judgments. (Para 13) |
ORAL ORDER
This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.85/2017 dated 10.01.2018 by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court'), whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.694/2012 dated 25.02.2017 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysore (hereinafter referred to as the 'the trial Court').
2. Abridged facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 30.04.2012 at about 10.45 p.m., within the jurisdiction of N.R.Traffic circle on Mysore-Hunsure Double Road, near Paduvarahalli signal light junction, the revision petitioner being the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-19-F-2742 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to the same the luggage box door all of a sudden opened and hit the pedestrian by name S. Harish i.e., the deceased in the instant case. Owing to the impact of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Though he shifted to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on 01.05.2012. As such, one Shivakumar, the cousin of the deceased has lodged the complaint before the N.R.Traffic Police Station as per Ex.P1 on 01.05.2012 against the driver of the KSRTC bus. On the strength of Ex.P1, the said police registered FIR against the revision petitioner in crime No.124/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. Subsequently, PW.9 conducted the investigation and laid a charge sheet against the accused/petitioner for the aforementioned offences before the trial Court. The trail Court, after securing the presence of the accused framed the charges against him for the said offences.
3. To prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution in total examined 9 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.9 and marked 9 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. However, the revision petitioner/accused also examined one witness as DW.1 and marked one document as Ex.D1.
4. Post assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the revision petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and thereby sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, in default of payment of fine, further directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and further directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.85/2017.
6. The First Appellate Court after re-assessing the entire evidence on record, the dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner/accused by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel Sri Dilraj Rohit Sequeira, for the revision petitioner and the learned HCGP Sri Channappa Earappa for the respondent-State.
8. The primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court grossly erred while convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC without appreciating the evidence on record in a right perspective. It is an admitted case of the prosecution and the
