Sri K.B. Gurubasappa Basappa vs State of Karnataka

D.V. Shylendra Kumar

This revision petition u/s 397 of Cr.P.C. is by a person who has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC.

Revision petitioner was the driver of a transport vehicle - a bus bearing registration No. KA 17 G 8989 on 4.4.2004 while being driven by the petitioner rammed into oncoming Maruti Van on National High way No. 13 nearby Gurupura & Purale Village in Shimoga-Holehonnur National Highway No. 13 at about 5 and 5.30 p.m. which resulted in the death of as many as 9 passengers in the Maruti Van and injuries to the rest of 4 other passengers and therefore the revision petitioner had been charged of the offences as noticed above.

Learned judge of the trial court though did find some minor discrepancies in the evidence let in by the prosecution, nevertheless found substantial evidence and having inferred that the accused person had caused the accident by his rash and negligent driving had therefore proceeded to convict the accused person of the offences as noticed above.

In the appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Shimoga, in Crl.Appeal No. 5/2009 the learned Sessions Judge found no occasion to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and therefore dismissed the appeal as per the judgment dated 28.6.2011, hence the present revision petition.

Mr. Ajay Kumar. learned counsel for the petitioner has putforth several contentions. It is firstly submitted that the prosecution witnesses had not witnessed the actual happening of the accident but, on the other hand, admitted in the cross-examination that they were either behind the bus, which was driven by the accused person or behind the Maruti Van, which was also involved in the accident and therefore, could not witness the accident happening.

It is also pointed out that the place at which the accident had taken place there is a bridge and a small curve etc., the possibility of the bus being driven in a rash or high speed was not possible and therefore no negligence could have been attributed to the accused person. Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel also submits that the learned judge of the trial Court has committed grave error in over looking the discrepancies which was obvious in the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses that even when the evidence was not fully supportive of the prosecution case finding recorded to the effect that the accused person has committed the offence by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed is nothing short of speculation and if at all there was any doubt, the benefit could have been given to the accused and not in favour of the prosecution.

Mr. Ajay Kumar also points out that; even as per the spot mahazar Ex.P2 while only the right front side of the bumper of the bus had suffered damage, the maruti van had suffered extensive damage and it is an indication that it was the driver of the Maruti Van who perhaps could have been negligent and not the driver of the bus and in the absence of clear evidence this possibility is also supported by the rough sketch Ex.P25. In such circumstances, no negligence could have been attributed to the driver of the bus.

Learned counsel submits that the approach of the learned judge of the appellate Court in assuming negligence on the part of the accused, because of the ghastly nature of the accident is not called for and therefore, the petitioner''s case has not received proper consideration before the appellate Court and as such the judgment and sentence are not sustainable in law.

I have perused the orders of the trial judge and the learned appellate judge and bestowed my consideration to the submission made at the bar. While contentions urged by Sri Ajay Kumar, is by inviting this Court to reappreciate evidence on record, jurisdiction exercised by this Court u/s 397 of Cr.P.C. is not one of appellate jurisdiction.