Conviction for negligent driving upheld; penalty modified in light of personal circumstances.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND)

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.03.2013 passed in C.C. No.943/2010 by the learned JMFC, Kumta, and the judgment dated 28.10.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.69/2013 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, whereby the conviction and sentence were confirmed.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused on

14.09.2010, being the driver of a pickup van bearing registration No. KA-47-3061, was driving the said vehicle from Kumta to Honnavar in a rash and negligent manner and, dashed against a pedestrian. As a result of the accident, the pedestrian sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same while undergoing treatment at a hospital in Goa. The Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections

279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code .

3. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses, PW1 to PW8, and marked 17 documents as Exhibits P1 to P17. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The accused examined himself as DW-1. The trial Court appreciating the evidence available on record, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section s 279 and 304A of the IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ₹2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC. Additionally, the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.69/2013. The Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, modified the judgment by setting aside the conviction and sentence of fine imposed for the offence under Section 279 of IPC, while confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC.

5. Sri S.P. Kandagal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the prosecution evidence is vitiated by material discrepancies and contradictions in the oral testimony of the witnesses. He further submits that the accident occurred due to the sudden and negligent entry of the deceased onto the road, without taking note of the approaching vehicles. It is contended that the accident was solely attributable to the negligence of the deceased, who failed to exercise due caution while crossing the road. The accused, it is submitted, was driving the vehicle with due care and caution. Learned counsel further contends that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution is insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences charged.

6. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State, submits that PW1, the complainant, has narrated the incident in accordance with the contents of Ex.P1, which stands corroborated by Ex.P2 – the spot mahazar, and Ex.P3 – the spot sketch. It is submitted that Exs.P2 and P3 are in consonance with the evidence of PW1. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that the prosecution has proved its case through PW4, an eyewitness, whose presence at the scene of occurrence is established, as he was running a shop in the vicinity. It is contended that both the trial Court and the appellate Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, have rightly held the accused guilty of the offences