S. Shivakumar vs State

V. Jagannathan, J.—The Petitioner is before'' this Court calling in question his conviction and sentence passed in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the I.P.C. The Petitioner was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/-for the offence u/s 279 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of the same, to undergo S.I. for a period of fifteen days and in respect of the offence u/s 304A of the I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of six months and to pay a: One of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of the said fine amount, to undergo further S.I. for a period of one month. The appellate court: confirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Petitioner.

The prosecution case, in short, is that, on 26.8.2003 at about 8.00 p.m., in front of the shop of one Rame Gowdaon Mysore Pumphouse road at Kalmanti Village, when deceased Rachaiah @ Racha Shetty was crossing the road to bring beedi from the shop of C.W.3, the lorry bearing registration No. KA-14-6415 driven by the Petitioner herein came in a rash and negligent manner from Mysore side and dashed Rachaiah. Rachaiah died at the spot. Telephonic message was received by the S.H.O. on the very same day and he went to the spot collected the complaint from C.W. 1 at the spot as per Ex.P-1 and the dead body was sent to the hospital for postmortem examination. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the I.P.C.

On pleading not guilty to the charge, the prosecution led evidence by examining P. Ws, 1 to 9 and got marked documents Exs.P-1 to P-8. The accused led no evidence nor he said anything in respect of the witnesses evidence which were put to him u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The trial court accepted the case of the prosecution based on the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the spot mahazar as well as the sketch map produced at Exs.P-2 and P-3 respectively. Though the evidence of the other witnesses was found to be unreliable, as they were not the eye-witnesses, the trial court was of the view that the testimony of P.W. 1 was fully supported by the documentary evidence as per Exs.P-2 and P-3 and, therefore, took note of the manner in which the accident occurred. The lorry in question, after hitting the deceased, having moved ahead to a distance of 40 feet before coming to a halt, the trial court was convinced that the accident took place due tot he rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the Petitioner herein. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. The appellate court had no difficulty in accepting the reasoning of the trial court and hence, the appeal was dismissed.

Haying heard the Petitioner''s counsel and also the learned Government Pleader, who took notice for the Respondent State, I am unable to agree with the contention put forward by the Petitioner''s counsel that there is some discrepancy in the evidence inasmuch as P.W.1 has stated that: there was a median at the spot and therefore, some doubt arises in the prosecution case. The above contention does not carry much weight because, the trial court has accepted the evidence of P.W.1 as it was found to be fully corroborated by the documentary evidence in the form of spot panchanama Ex.P-2 and the scene of the accident Ex.P-3. These two documents did not reveal existence of any median at the spot. At the same time, the courts below have found that the place, where the accident took place, was actually the place where the pedestrians were allowed to cross the road.

Under the above circumstances, I do not see any error being committed by the courts below in accepting the case of the prosecution and the very manner of the accident itself is sufficient indication of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the Petitioner.

6 As far as the sentence is concerned, the Petitioner is convicted and sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in respect of the offence u/s 304A of the I.P.C. The said sentence being the minimum sentence, I do not see any case made out by the Petitioner for this Court to interfere even with regard to the sentence aspect of the matter.

For the above reasons, the revision petition is dismissed.