In a criminal trial for rash and negligent driving, if the accused fails to provide a plausible explanation for facts within their exclusive knowledge regarding the cause of an accident, such failure strengthens the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, justifying a conviction for criminal negligence.

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.02.2018 IN CRL.A.NO.42/2014 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT KODAGU-MADIKERI, SITTING AT VIRAJPET AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 02.06.2014 IN C.C.NO.1029/2009 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., AT VIRAJPET AND THE REVISION PETITIONER MAY BE ORDERED TO BE ACQUITTED IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri N. Ravindranath Kamath, learned Senior 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 in C.C.No.1029/2009 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under:

“By virtue of powers vested U/S 255(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is convicted of the offence P/U/S 279, 304(A) of IPC.

The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months and shall also pay a fine of Rs: 1,000/- for the offence P/U/S 279 of IPC.

The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 8 months and shall also pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence P/U/S 304(A) of IPC.

In default to pay fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months.

M.O.1 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Lorry bearing Reg.No.MYC-90 and Autorikshaw bearing Reg. No.KA-12-A-778, which are released to the interim custody of the applicants is made absolute.”

3. Order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.42/2014 on the appeal filed by the Accused.

4. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 27.02.2018, dismissed the appeal of the accused inter alia holding in paragraphs 29 to 32 as under:

“29. PW-17 Rangaswamy Assistant Engineer of PWD who prepared sketch of scene of offence. The sketch issued by PW-17 is marked at Ex.P-14. In Ex.P-14 the width of the road, place of the crime of the accident and width of the foot path are all mentioned.

In Ex.P-14 it is mentioned that the width of the asphalted surface is 4.80 meters, width of mud portion of left side of Ammathi-Virajpet road is mentioned in the place of accident as 0.8 meters. The width of the right side foot path of Ammathi to Virajpet mentioned in the place of accident is 1.10 meters. The distance of place of crime of occurrence from the right side edge of the road is 1.10 meters. That means the lorry which proceeding from Ammathi side to Virajpet side gone to the extreme right side of the road. On perusal of the document Ex.P-12 photo it shows that the lorry came to the extreme right side of the road and there is no space to the Auto Rickshaw on the asphalted surface to proceed further. Hence on perusal of the document Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-13 photos, Ex.P-14 sketch of the scene of offence clearly reveals that the lorry went extreme right side of the road and dashed against the Auto Rickshaw. Since the accused has taken contention that this accident was occurred because of axle cut and detach of the front wheel, it has to be seen whether the accused has proved said offence. There is no dispute that the front wheel of the lorry was detached and axle rod of the front wh