Prakash B.M. vs State

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The conviction of the petitioner for the charges punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC and the sentence thereon ordered by the first appellate Court setting aside acquittal order of the Magistrate is challenged in this revision petition.

The facts reveal that on 13.01.2005 at about 9.45 a.m., an accident occurred said to be due to rash and negligent driving of the goods tempo bearing reg. No. KA-08/0815 with another goods autorickshaw bearing reg. No. KL-08/F-1558 and TVS Scooty, etc. and in the said accident one person died and others were injured. A complaint of this accident was filed as per Ex. P1.

In the course of the investigation, the statement was recorded. The vehicles were examined by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. Spot-mahazar with the sketch of scene of occurrence was drawn. Inquest and post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased was also held. Ultimately, a charge-sheet came to be laid against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid charges.

During the trial, P.Ws. 1 to 13 were examined and in their evidence, Exs. P1 to 15 were marked.

The trial Court after recording the statement, heard the counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, acquitted the petitioner of the aforesaid charges. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of acquittal, the State preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court in Crl. A. No. 707/2010. The said appeal was allowed and the petitioner was convicted for the said charges. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present revision petition is filed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned High Court Government Pleader.

The point that arises for my consideration is;

Whether the first appellate Court was justified in awarding conviction of the petitioner for the charges under Section 279, 338 and 304-A IPC and in passing the order of sentence? 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the driver of the goods tempo bearing reg. No. KA-08/0815 and on the date of the accident in the morning at about 9.45 a.m., P.W. 2-driver of the goods autorickshaw while proceeding on his vehicle bearing reg. No. KL-08/F-1558 abruptly took "U turn" at the place of the accident and in the process, the goods tempo bearing reg. No. KA-08/0815 hit the said goods autorickshaw bearing reg. No. KL-08/F-1558 in which P.W. 2 was traveling and thereafter hit other vehicles in series which were behind the goods autorickshaw. In the circumstances Krishnappa, who was on the motorcycle sustained severe injuries and died during the course of the treatment. The inmates of the other vehicles were also sustained injuries in the said accident.

Now, as could be seen from the evidence of P.W. 2, it is very much clear that he being the driver of the goods autorickshaw bearing reg. No. KL-08/F-1558 had abruptly taken "U turn" and was proceeding ahead on the road and many other vehicles were behind the said vehicle. It is because of abrupt "U turn" taken by the driver of goods autorickshaw bearing reg. No. KL-08/F-1558, the goods tempo bearing reg. No. KA-08/0815 came and hit the said vehicle and other vehicles which were on its left side. It is negligent act of the driver, who took "U turn" abruptly, which contributed in the occurrence of accident.

This fact has been admitted by P.W. 3 in the cross-examination and it is stated by him "it is true to suggest that accident occurred due to the negligence of my vehicle driver". P.W. 3 was proceeding on the goods autorickshaw, which took "U turn" and he being the inmate of the said autorickshaw states the fact that it was the negligence of the driver of his goods autorickshaw. So far as taking "U turn" almost all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution on this fact.

That apart, though the prosecution has examined P.W. 4, he states in his evidence that the accident took place at 09.15 a.m. on that day. So far as the occurrence of the accident is concerned, it was 9.30 a.m. P.W. 9 states that it was about 11.45 a.m. Though the prosecution examined P.Ws. 2 to 4, 9 and 13 as the witnesses to the accident, so far as the manner of the accident is concerned, it is only because of "U turn" that was taken by the driver of the goods autorickshaw bearing reg. No. KL-08/F-1558 and it is in that process this accident has occurred. So, when the vehicle takes a "U turn" abruptly, the possibility of such accident would be there. It is in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court granted an order of acquittal and the first appellate Court appears to have over-looked this aspect and granted an order of conviction. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the occurrence of the accident due to the rash and negligent driving by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the impugned Judgment and Order of the first appellate Court will have to be set aside and that of the trial Court is to be restored.

Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered by the first appellate Court in Crl. A. No. 707/2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC is set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the said charges. Fine if any deposited shall be returned to the petitioner.