Farooq Pasha vs State of Karnataka

A.N. Venugopala Gowda

The petitioner was the accused in C.C.No.228/2002, on the file of JMFC, Chamarajanagar. Learned Magistrate, by a judgment dated 7.2.2007, holding the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Ss.279 and 304A IPC and 134 (a) & (b) of IMV Act, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and pay fine. Crl.A.No.5/2007 filed in the Sessions Court at Chamarajanagar was allowed in part. The conviction for the offences under Ss.279 and 304A IPC and 134(a) & (b) of IMV Act was confirmed. However, the sentence imposed was modified. Feeling aggrieved, accused has filed this Criminal Revision Petition. Case of the prosecution is that, on 6.8.2001, at about 12.00 p.m., on Santhemarahalli - Chamarajanagar Road, near Kadahalli Gate, the accused drove Goods Tempo bearing No. KA-09-1977 in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and dashed against one Smt. Maramma, who was going on the left side of the road and said Maramma sustained grievous injuries and succumbed on the spot and thereby, the accused committed the offences punishable under Ss.279 and 304A of IPC and S.134 (a) & (b) of IMV Act.

Ex.P.1/Complaint having been lodged, case was registered and FIR/Ex.P.12 was sent to the court. Investigation was undertaken On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Accused pleaded not guilty and trial was held. 12 witnesses were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.12 were marked to prove the prosecution case. PWs-1 to 3 are stated to be the eyewitnesses. Based on the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 and Ex.P.11, Sketch drawn by the I.O., it was held that the accused is guilty of the charges and he was sentenced.

Learned Advocate contended that there being no credible evidence showing that the vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner by the accused, the conviction being illegal, interference is warranted. He submitted that the evidence of PW-3 and PW-6 being inconsistent, the charges having not been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts, the Courts below are not justified in finding the petitioner guilty and imposing the sentence. He further submitted that the record has not been correctly appreciated and the findings in the impugned Judgments are perverse and illegal, warranting interference in the matter.

Learned HCGP, on the other hand, by referring to the depositions of PWs-3 and 6, supported the impugned judgments and sought dismissal of the petitions.

Perused the record. Point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubts?

PW-1/Rangaiah is the husband of the deceased Maramma. He lodged the complaint Ex.P.1. According to him, the vehicle which caused the accident came in high speed from Santhemarahalli side, dashed to Maramma and sped away. He has stated that the Police came to the spot and prepared the mahazar Ex.P.2. He has admitted that he is unable to state as to who else saw the accident. He has admitted that he is not aware as to when the mahazar was drawn and that, his signature obtained at the time when he was in the hospital. He is unaware of the contents of the mahazar and as to who else signed it. He has not identified the accused as the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident.

PW-2/Nagaraju has admitted that he has not seen the Tempo driver and the occurrence of the accident. Evidence of PW-2 is not helpful to the prosecution.

PW-3/Shankar Murthy has deposed that the Tempo came in high speed and dashed to Smt. Maramma, who died on the spot and that the vehicle did not stop. He has identified the accused to be the driver of the Tempo. During cross examination, he has stated that he is unable to state the speed in which the vehicle was driven. Though he noted the number of the vehicle, he has not furnished the number. According to him, the vehicle was stopped for 5 minutes and he saw the driver. He has stated that, he accompanied PWs-1 and 2 to the Police Station and that he also signed the complaint and police obtained his signature to the mahazar. According to him, he saw the accused in Station on the day the accident took place.

PW-4 /Basavaraju has not supported the prosecution case. PW-5/Basavaraja Atlapure has spoken about Ex.P.5 Inquest report.

PW-6/Sayed Jaweed was the owner of the vehicle KA-09-1977. He has stated that, in his absence, others were driving the vehicle, but, he is not aware as to who were the other persons who drove the vehicle. According to him, accused was the driver of the vehicle during the year 2002 and an accident took place and a person died.

PW-8/Anka Shetty has deposed regarding Ex.P.6, vehicle seizure mahazar. He is not aware of the contents of the mahazar and according to him, mahazar was not prepared at the spot and he signed it in the Police Station. He is not aware of the vehicle number.

PW-9 is a Medical Officer. According to him, Nataraju, Mahadevaswamy and Sundaresh injured came to the hospital for treatment and he treated and issued wound certificates Exs.P.7, P 8 and P.9.

PW-10 Padmaprasad, Motor Vehicles Inspector, inspected the vehicle and did not find mechanical defect. Ex.P.10 is his report.

PW-11/Marishetty, PSI went to the spot at 2.30 p.m., and found the dead body and drew up the Sketch Ex.P.11 and prepared the mahazar Ex.P.2 and inquest report Ex.P.4. According to him, on 9.8.2001, accused came to the Station and surrendered. Having conducted the investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

PW-12 is the PSI, Chamarajanagar East Police Station, who received the complaint Ex.P.1 at 2.00 p.m., on 6.8.2001 and registered a case. He has admitted that, in the complaint there is no mention of the type of vehicle and its owner.

Ex.P.1 is the complaint. There is no mention of the name of the driver, vehicle number and its owner. The evidence adduced to link the accused to the alleged crime is scanty. There is no credible material showing that the petitioner was driving the vehicle at the time the accident took place.

PWs-1 and 2 have not identified the petitioner to be the driver of the vehicle at the time the accident took place. The evidence of PW-3 is inconsistent and not trustworthy According to PW-1 after causing the accident the vehicle did not stop. As against the said evidence, PW-3 has stated that the vehicle stopped for 5 minutes and he saw the driver-accused. According to the I.O., petitioner surrendered on 9.8.2001, whereas, PW-3 has deposed that he saw the accused in the Police Station on 6.8.2001 itself. Though, PW-3 has deposed that he has signed Ex.P.1, the same is not evident from the perusal of the document. The prosecution has not placed cogent evidence to link the accused to the alleged crime. The learned Appellate Judge has observed that there is inconsistency in the evidence of material witnesses. Without correctly appreciating the record of the case, the petitioner was held guilty and was sentenced. The findings recorded by the Court below against the petitioner is perverse. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

In the result, petition is allowed and the impugned Judgments are set aside. The bail bonds executed are cancelled and the petitioner is acquitted from the charge.