Back
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - DHARWAD BEN
Anil B Katti, J
Manjunath Madev Naik – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
CRL.RP No. 100369 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Laxmesh Putta Mataguppi
For the Respondents: M.H. Patil
A conviction for rash and negligent driving is sustainable based on physical spot evidence and eyewitness testimony where the accused fails to provide any plausible explanation for losing control of the vehicle, demonstrating a lack of due diligence in driving.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337 and 338 - Offence of rash and negligent driving - Conviction upheld - Evidence of injured witnesses corroborated by spot panchanama (Ex.P.2) clearly establishes that the accused lost control and struck a roadside tree, causing injuries to inmates - Appellant failed to provide any explanation under Section 313 CrPC for the vehicle crossing the road and hitting the tree - Appellate court findings regarding actionable negligence are based on legal evidence on record. (Paras 12, 16, 17)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 162 - Admissibility of sketch map - While a sketch map based on statements made to police may have limitations, the contents of a spot panchanama prepared in the presence of panch witnesses and identifying the incident location remain admissible and substantive evidence. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The accused was charge-sheeted following a motor vehicle accident on 08.02.2014, where the vehicle he was driving veered off the road and collided with a tree, resulting in injuries to the passengers. The trial court and the first Appellate court convicted the accused under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC, which the petitioner challenged in this revision.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction, finding that the consistent testimony of the injured witnesses matched the physical evidence documented in the panchanama. The absence of any explanation from the accused regarding the loss of vehicle control supported the inference of negligence.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the charge of rash and negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt and whether the conviction was based on admissible evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the prosecution establishes through reliable and consistent evidence of victims and independent corroboration via panchanama that a driver has lost control of a vehicle, in the absence of a plausible defense or explanation for the incident, a finding of actionable negligence is legally sustainable.
Result: Revision petition partly allowed; conviction confirmed, but the sentence for the offence under Section 338 IPC was reduced.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual allegations of the criminal offence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. assessment of evidence and dispute regarding the allegation of negligence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. examination of documentary evidence admissibility and the necessity of explanation by the accused. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. appellate modification of sentencing for the conviction. (Para 18) |
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 23.11.2021 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5017/2021 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 03.03.2021 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL JMFC, SIRSI IN CC NO.826/2014, IN RESPECT OF OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 279, 337, 338 OF IPC.
THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 14.03.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The revision petitioner/accused feeling aggrieved by the judgment of first Appellate Court – I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, UK, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, in Crl.A.No.5017/2021 dated 23.11.2021 preferred this revision petition.
2. Parties to the petition are referred with their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that on 08.02.2014 at 3.30 p.m. on Dasanakoppa - Banavasi road near Bellanakere, accused was driving Tavera vehicle bearing registration No.KA-16/A-2575 in rash and negligent manner having lost control over the vehicle dashed against road side tree. On account of such actionable negligence of accused in driving the vehicle, inmates of car – complainant/ Manjunath Bellappa Naik along with Koteshwara, Devaraj, Ravi and Manchappa sustained injuries. On these allegations made in the complaint, investigation was carried out and charge-sheet came to be filed.
4. In response to summons, accused appeared before the trial Court and the trial Court after having satisfied with the prima facie evidence against accused framed accusation for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution was called upon to prove allegations made against the accused. Prosecution relies on the evidence of PWs-1 to 10 and documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.30.
5. On closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded and accused denied all the incriminating material evidence appearing against him and claimed that false case is filed. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence convicted accused for the aforesaid offences and imposed sentence as per order of sentence.
6. Accused challenged the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed by trial Court before the first Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5017/2021. The first Appellate Court by its judgment dated 23.11.2021 dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed by trial Court.
7. Revision petitioner/accused is challenging concurrent finding of both the Courts below contending that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of PWs- 1 to 3 and the sketch map Ex.P.3 with the spot feature shown in the panchanama Ex.P.2 and as a result recorded improper reasonings to convict accused for the offences alleged against him. The Courts below have overlooked the evidence of PWs-5, 6 and 8 and there is no chance for accused to drive the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The heavy loaded vehicle was moving in upward direction with a curve in hillock area and accused tried to avoid the accident, as such, there was no any negligence on the part of driver of vehicle in causing the accident. The approach and appreciation of oral and
