Pyarejan vs The State by Indiranagar Police

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.11.2002 passed by the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C. No. 29478/1996, the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections- 279 and 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default, to undergo imprisonment for further period on month. The said judgment of conviction has been affirmed in Crl.A. No. 718/2002 dated 23.03.2004 passed by the Fast Track Court No. 7, Bengaluru.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that:

"On 23.07.1996 at about 11.30 p.m, the accused, being the driver of a private bus bearing No. CNO-9366, drove the said vehicle on old Madras, in front of ITI factory in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-03-4044 which was coming towards K.R. Puram. Due to the impact, the inmates of the Autorickshaw namely Smt. Marry Christian and her husband sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries."

To prove the guilt of the accused-petitioner, the prosecution has examined four witnesses (PWs. 1 to 4) and got marked Ex. P.1 to P7. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused. The defence of the accused is total denial of the offence alleged against him. After conducting the full pledged trial, the accused came to be convicted for offences punishable under Sections-279 & 304-A of IPC, and imposed sentences as stated supra.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt and the material documents have not been produced before the Court below. Further, the learned judge of the trial Court has not properly analyzed the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective. The first appellate Court, being final court of facts, has failed to re-appreciate the material on record and prays for setting aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

On perusal of the materials on records it is seen that evidence of PW.2 (injured-driver of auto rickshaw), is an eyewitness to the incident, PW.4 injured-inmate of the auto rickshaw is the husband of the deceased. PW.3 is the SHO who received the complaint and registered the case against the accused.

In a case of this nature, the evidence of the injured and the driver of the auto rickshaw which met with the accident, inmates of the rickshaw are very important. Mr. Avalappa (PW.2) is the injured and driver of the auto rickshaw bearing No. KA-03-4044 which met with the accident. He categorically deposed that at the time of accident, he was proceeding towards K.R. Puram. At that time, the owner of the auto rickshaw Mohan Rao (PW.4), his wife the deceased and his 2 children were traveling in the said auto. When they were near ITI factory, a BTS bus had stopped at the bus-stop and at the same time, a private bus driven by the accused came from the opposite side with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Having seen the same, he took his auto to the extreme left side, but yet the said bus dashed to his rickshaw. In the said accident, he also suffered fracture to his right leg and head injury. Further, he has deposed that except one child the other three inmates sustained severe injuries and later on, Smt. Kathrine Mary died in NIMHANS hospital.

Mr. Shiva (PW.1) who was the driver of another auto rickshaw has deposed that on the date and time of accident, he was driving his auto rickshaw on the left side of the road just behind the auto rickshaw No. 4044 driven by PW.2 which met with the accident. He has deposed that at the time of accident, PW.2 was driving his rickshaw on the left side of the road. The driver of offending bus came from opposite direction on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the auto bearing No. 4044 resulting in one death. Immediately he stopped his auto and shifted the injured to the hospital and thereafter lodged complaint before the K.R. Puram police. The suggestion put to him to the effect that he racing his auto rickshaw with auto rickshaw No. 4044 driven by PW.2 and due to such racing the accident took place, same has been specifically denied by this witness. Despite searching cross-examination, nothing contra has been elicited from the mouth of PWs. 1 & 2 to disbelieve their evidence and even to remotely probabilise the defence taken up on behalf of the accused-petitioner.

Mr. Mohan Raj (PW.4) is none other than the owner of the auto rickshaw 4044 which met with the accident and husband of the deceased. He has deposed that at the time of accident, himself, his wife Kathrine Marry and 2 children were returning on old Madras road driven by PW.2 and when their auto passed in front of ITI factory, he saw bus standing at the bus-stop and at that time, one more bus came from the opposite direction and while overtaking the stationary bus, it came on its right side and dashed against the auto in which he was traveling and in the said accident all the three suffered grievous injuries and later on his wife Kathrine Marry died in the hospital. Despite searching cross-examination, nothing contra has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to discard his evidence. The evidence of this witness corroborates the version of PWs. 1 & 2 on material aspects.

The argument of the learned counsel is that neither the sketch of the spot where the accident took place nor the spot mahazar were not marked by the prosecution to prove the accident. Though the said two documents are part of the investigation records and available on record, they have not been got marked.

On careful scrutiny of sketch it is seen that at the accident spot, auto rickshaw bearing No. KA-03-4044 was proceeding towards K.R. Puram side on the extreme left side and whereas, the offending bus which was coming from the opposite direction and proceeding dashed against the auto rickshaw and this is not seriously challenged while cross examining the material witnesses. There is no reason to disbelieve the assertion of the material witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. All the material witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have corroborated in material particulars about the manner in which the accident took place and rash and negligent manner of driving by the driver of the offending vehicle causing the death of Kathrine Marry, the inmate of auto rickshaw. Both the Courts below have analyzed the oral and documentary evidence in right perspective. They have concurrently held that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. No good grounds are made out to interfere with the well considered concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below and consequently, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. One month time is granted to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court to serve sentence of imposed on him.