D. Vilas Dombar vs The State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

It is alleged that the present petitioner was said to be the driver of a bus bearing registration No. KA-40-F-174, belonging to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and he was driving the bus from Bangalore to Chitradurga on 13.4.2008 at about 12.30 a.m. It transpires that near Imatha hotel, Shira, the bus had taken a turn towards the right to enter the bypass road at Shira, at which point of time, a car bearing registration No. KA-16-M-2930, which was following the bus, had dashed into the bus, as a result of which, a passenger of the car, namely, P.W. 1, P.E. Venkataswamy had sustained a simple injury and another passenger, P.W. 2 P.M. Chandrashekar, had sustained a grievous injury. This had resulted in a complaint being registered by the Shira Police, who, in turn, are said to have visited the spot, prepared a mahazar and seized the vehicles. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted and the accused had entered appearance and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter was posted for prosecution evidence and the prosecution had examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and had marked ten documents as Exhibits P. 1 to P. 10 and after recording the statement of the accused and after hearing both sides, the Court below had framed the following point for its consideration:--

"1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 13.4.2008, at about 12.30 a.m., during night hours, when C.W. 1 to 4 were going towards Chitradurga in vehicle bearing Regn. No. KA 16 M 2930, near Imatha Hotel of Sira, accused being the driver of KSRTC bus bearing Regn. No. KA 40 F 174 drove the same without giving any signal and put on Indicator light and took sudden turn towards right side negligently in front of Imatha Hotel. In the result of which, KSRTC bus dashed to body of the Car which was coming on back side of the bus and caused damage. Further, C.W. 1 sustained simple injury and C.W. 2 sustained grievous injury and accused caused accident without taking any precautionary measures and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with 177 Motor Vehicle Act?"

The court below has answered the above point in the affirmative and convicted and sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279, IPC and Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337, IPC and Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338, IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence punishable under Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''MV Act'', for brevity). The order of the trial court having been carried in appeal, the appellate court had confirmed the sentence. It is that which is under challenge in the present petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would point out that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was ridden with contradictions and omissions and the courts below have committed a grave error in not appreciating the true facts and circumstances. It is contended that the petitioner had taken deviation from National Highway-4 towards Shira, when it was just past midnight and the driver of the car, which was following him, was moving at a high speed and without noticing that there was a deviation on the high way, had blindly driven into the bus, on account of his rash and negligent driving and the fault is attributed to the petitioner. The entire case has been turned around against the petitioner only on account of the fact that P.Ws. 1 and 2 were said to be politically powerful persons, holding positions as office bearers of a political party and they have used political influence to create a biased complaint against the petitioner while shielding the driver of the car, who was apparently driving the vehicle at a high speed of at least 120 kilometres per hour and it is on account of which that the car had ran into the bus while it was negotiating deviation off the high way into the bypass road. Therefore, the evidence on record being engineered in order to establish the manner in which the accident had occurred, it could not be said that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the court below even holding that several offences alleged under the several provisions of the law had been established.

It is noticed that the driver of the car and the conductor of the bus were treated as hostile witnesses and there has been no statement elicited from the witnesses against the accused. It is an admitted fact that all the occupants of the car were sleeping except the driver and in view of the driver having turned hostile, there was no evidence forthcoming from the passengers of the car as to the manner in which the accident had occurred. Further, in the absence of mahazar having been proved by any cogent evidence and in the absence of a sketch of the scene of the accident, there is no clue as to the manner in which the accident had occurred. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that both the courts below were not justified in holding against the accused and seeks his acquittal.

While the learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, seeks to justify the judgment.

On the face of it, the Government Pleader would candidly admit that the mahazar, which was produced in the case, in support of the manner in which the accident had occurred, had not been proved, as the mahazar witnesses had turned hostile. It is also admitted by him that there is no sketch prepared of the scene of the accident to demonstrate the manner in which the accident had occurred. Therefore, the admitted circumstance is that the bus was turning off the high way and the accident has occurred by the car, which was following the bus, having dashed into the bus. It is not clear as to which part of the bus, the car had dashed into, whether it was rear end or whether it was the side of the bus, as it was turning and whether this was on account of the bus having suddenly turned or whether it was on account of the car which may have been travelling at a high speed, having dashed into the bus, being unable to control the speed. Therefore, on this primary observation that apart from the crucial witness namely, the driver of the car and the bus conductor, who had not supported the case of the prosecution and had been treated as hostile witness, there were no oilier witnesses to speak of the manner in which the accident had occurred. Apparently, the passengers in the car were asleep at the time of the accident and therefore, in the absence of any oral testimony or material documents, to indicate the manner in which the accident had occurred, it cannot be said that the prosecution had established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, merely proceeding on the footing that the bus had turned to the right side while proceeding from Bangalore to Chitradurga and therefore, it had gone across the highway and had come into the path of the car is a presumption, which does not take into account the possibility that the car may have been travelling at a high speed, though the bus was moving at sedate speed and had turned to take deviation into the bypass road of the highway. This is a circumstance, which necessarily has to be kept in view and which is apparent from the sequence of events as indicated in the record. The glaring circumstance that there are no material documents to demonstrate the manner in which the accident had occurred, the prosecution certainly has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The judgments of the court below are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted.