Madesh vs The State of Karnataka

There are concurrent findings of courts below that petitioner is guilty of offences punishable under sections 279 & 304A IPC and also for offences punishable under sections 134(a) & 134(b) r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ''the Act''). I have heard Sri Anand, learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for State.

The law is fairly well settled that this court while exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 Cr.P.C., does not sit as a court of second appeal. This court can interfere with the impugned judgment if the courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioner.

The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that deceased child (aged about 3 years) suddenly entered road and came across motorcycle and it was impossible for petitioner to avoid accident. The road on which accident took place is a metallic road and it was impossible for petitioner to ride motorcycle at high speed. The mother of child has not been examined as a witness. In the circumstances, courts below should have extended benefit of doubt to petitioner.

The learned HCGP would justify the impugned judgment.

On reconsideration of the matter, I find that accident had taken place on a road in the midst of K.H. Nagara Village within the jurisdiction of Bhadravathi Police Station. The eye-witness account of PW2 & PW3 would reveal that petitioner along with two pillion riders rode motorcycle at a high speed and dashed against child. The evidence of PW2 & PW3 cannot be suspected. The contents of rough sketch would reveal that accident took place on a road in the midst of K.H. Nagar Village. There are houses on either side of road. There was a junction near the place of accident. The deceased was a child aged about 3 years. In the circumstances, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that deceased suddenly entered the road and came across motorcycle and made it impossible to petitioner to avoid accident cannot be accepted. The submission of learned counsel that it was not possible for petitioner to ride motorcycle at a high speed as it was a metallic road cannot be accepted. The petitioner was riding motorcycle along with two pillion riders. The accident took place at about 4.30 p.m. on 08.12.2006. The petitioner owed a duty towards safety of children/pedestrians. The deceased was aged about 3 years. Therefore, deceased child cannot be held guilty of contributory negligence. The accident had taken place at a distance of five feet from western edge of road. The house of deceased child is situate to the west of road. When petitioner was riding motorcycle with two pillion riders and on a road in the midst of village, he could foresee the risk of children/pedestrians suddenly crossing road. The evidence on record would indicate after accident, petitioner abandoned motorcycle and ran away from that place. The motorcycle did not belong to petitioner. As per IMV report, petitioner had not produced driving licence. It looks probable that petitioner had taken motorcycle of his brother for a jolly ride. The petitioner had taken two pillion riders. The petitioner did not possess driving licence. The petitioner was unmindful of the consequences of his rash and negligent acts. The courts below have recorded concurrent findings on proper appreciation of evidence. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The revision petition is dismissed.