Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settappa vs The State of Karnataka

K. Govindarajulu, J.—The accused in CC No. 2348/2006 on the file of the Prl. JMFC, Hospet, is the revision petitioner herein. The facts of the case are that on 25.3.2006 at about 10.15 a.m., it is contended by the State that the accused, being the driver of the Tractor, drove rashly and negligently on NH 13 near the well of Golyanaik so as to endanger human life. While so, the trailer attached to the Tractor turtled, resulting in injuries who were moving in the trailer and also death of a person by name T.N. Kotraiah.

The presence of the accused is secured. Learned trial Judge has recorded the evidence. PWs. 1 to 10 are examined. Exhibits P1 to P24 are marked. The learned trial Judge has believed the case of the prosecution, in regard to the negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, convicted, the accused. The same is challenged in Criminal Appeal. No. 58/2008 on the File of the Fast Track Court-III, Hospet. The learned, appellate judge has dismissed the appeal.

The learned advocate for the accused vehemently contend that the accident is not on account of the fault of the driver of the vehicle, but it is on account of the mechanical defect/failure. So, it do not come within the purview of negligent act of the accused. So, the conviction recorded by the judges of the court below is not proper. So, pray for allowing the revision, petition.

The learned advocate for the revision petitioner takes me through the evidence of PW 3 Rudramuniswamy, wherein PW 3 states that the Hydraulic of the trailer is not attached property and thereby the trailer lifted upwards and when the driver of the tractor trying to make provision for the opposite vehicle to move, then the trailer went below the main road and in this process, the accident has occurred i.e., the link between the trailer and tractor having come out, he is not responsible for the accident. So, pray for an order of acquittal.

The HCGP on the other hand, supports the finding of the learned judges of the court below.

The settled law is that the quantum of evidence is not the criteria, but it is the quality of evidence is the criteria. For better appreciation, portion of the cross examination, of PW 3 and PW 6 relied is extracted: PW 3 state:-

PW 6 in the course of his cross examination has stated as follows:

The witnesses PWs. 3 & 6 are the inmates of the trailer. PW-6 denies about the mechanical failure asserted. PW 3 admits the same. The settled law is that if two views are permissible, one in favour of the accused, has to be taken, into consideration. The version of PW 3 is in favour of the accused so, it is taken as it is. A reading of the portion of the evidence extracted supra, would probabilise that looking to the on coming lorry, the driver of the Tractor takes the tractor to the left side of the road, in this process, when, the tractor was moving on the main road the trailer comes down to the katcha road, and thereby the link between the tractor and trailer detached. The fact that, the link comes out would probabilise that the driver of the tractor has not cared to see that his speed is within the limits of tractor pulling the trailer along with it. So, on the admitted evidence of PW. 3 itself, the case of the State for the offence of rash and negligent driving is proved. So, the discussion of the evidence of the other witnesses is not necessary. So, court, holds that the conviction recorded by the trial court, con firm eel by the Appellate Court do not require interference.

Revision Petition is dismissed.