The court emphasized the duty of drivers, especially professionals, to maintain utmost care and determined an appropriate deterrent sentence in cases of vehicular negligence resulting in death.

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction dated 22.02.2018 in C.C.No.29173/2015 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court – I, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced as under:

“Acting U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months with a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offences punishable u/s 279 of I.P.C. In default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo for further S.I. for a period of 30 days.The accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one year with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offences punishable u/s.304(A)of I.P.C. In default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo S.I. for a period of 6 months.Both sentences shall run concurrently.

The bail bond of the accused shall stands cancelled.

Supply free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith.”

3. Order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.25044/2018, which came to be dismissed by considered judgment dated 19.11.2020, on the file of XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, accused has filed the present revision petition on following grounds:

 That the findings of the trial court and the appellate are without the application of the judicial mind and it has been passed arbitrarily and unjustly.

 That, the prosecution had examined six witnesses before the trial court among whom four of witnesses were treated hostile. The PW1 was not on the spot when the incident alleged to have happened. PW6 is the Police Officer, who says that, he conducted het investigation after the incident was reported. Thus, it does make clear that, four witnesses turned hostile and two of the witnesses deposing aftermath the incident, the conviction which is based on the loose piece of evidence is not only wrong, but, judicially unacceptable.

 That, the case of the prosecution is that, the driver of the vehicle, a canter, had rode in a rash and a negligent manner, endangering human life and therefore caused accident of a pedestrian. The factum that required to be proved in a case of such nature is the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. That, the driver had been driving the vehicle on a road which is specifically meant and used for the motor vehicles. The deceased victim, is said to have been a pedestrian. Pedestrian has to move on a footpath or a pavement, which is reserved for foot users. It is not the case of the prosecution that, the vehicle crossed the road and entered the pedestrian area, or the footpath or the pavement and caused the death of such person. It is the pedestrian, which can be made out from the charge sheet materials, that he was on road and he had transgressed the area of walking and therefore he was at negligence. That, there is no evidence to show that, the driver of the vehicle was at fault. That, if at all, there was negligence or a rash driving of the vehicle, there would have been chances that he would have hit many other vehicles or persons. It is a case of a solitary victim and incident, therefore, labelling the driver of the canter vehicle to have driven the motor vehicle in a rash and negligent manner is a wrong finding.

 That, PW2 Inathi is said to be an eye witness. She was treated partially hostile. She is said to be a road side street vendor. She has not spoken of any negligence in driving.