State vs B.R. Pampapathi

N. Ananda, J.—The respondent (hereinafter referred to as ''accused'') was tried and acquitted of offences punishable under sections 279, 338 & 304A IPC. Therefore, States before this court. I have heard Sri M. Narayana Reddy, learned State Public Prosecutor for State and Sri K.N. Purushothaman, learned counsel for accused.

It is the case of prosecution that on 07.04.2000 at about 10 p.m., accused being the driver of mini lorry bearing No. KA-18-3635, drove lorry at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner on Holalkere-Chitradurga Road near Baragerarnma Circle in Chitradurga and dashed against deceased Chandrappa and P.W. 1-Shivanna, who were standing by the side of road near a bridge.

The prosecution has relied on evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 9 and documents marked as Ex. P.1 to Ex. P.16.

P.W. 1-Shivanna has deposed; on the date of incident at about 10 p.m., P.W. 1 and deceased Chandrappa had parked motorcycle of deceased Chandrappa near footpath and they were talking to each other and they were standing by the side of Holalkere-Chitradurga road near Barageramma Circle; at that time, a lorry came at a high speed from Holalkere side and dashed against P.W. 1 and deceased Chandrappa and their motorcycle; deceased Chandrappa, P.W. 1 and motorcycle were caught beneath lorry and they were dragged to a distance of 100 feet; deceased Chandrappa succumbed to injuries; P.W. 1 suffered injuries and he was treated in District Hospital at Chitradurga. The first information of accident was lodged by P.W. 2-Jagadish.

The defence of accused was that deceased Chandrappa was riding motorcycle, he swerved his motorcycle to his right side without showing any signal, as a result, lorry which was coming from Holalkere side dashed against deceased Chandrappa. Thus, deceased Chandrappa was guilty of rash and negligent riding of motorcycle.

On careful consideration of evidence of P.W. 1 and rough sketch marked as Ex. P. 15, I find evidence of P.W. 1 that P.W. 1 and deceased Chandrappa were standing by the side of road and parked their motorcycle on footpath is not credible.

During cross-examination, P.W. 1 has admitted at the time of accident, deceased Chandrappa was riding motorcycle. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 1, at the time of accident, deceased Chandrappa and P.W. 1 were standing by the side of road arid deceased Chandrappa had parked motorcycle on footpath cannot be accepted. The evidence of P.W. 1 that even after seeing lorry coming at a high speed from Holalkere, P.W. 1 and deceased Chandrappa were standing by the side of road, looks incredible. If lorry was fast approaching towards them, they should have moved aside to avoid from being hit by lorry. The prosecution has not examined the doctor, who treated P.W. 1. The prosecution has produced a copy of wound certificate of P.W. 1, which cannot be read as per se evidence. Therefore, there is no acceptable evidence in proof of injuries suffered by P.W. 1.

P.W. 2 to P.W. 5 are stated to be eye-witnesses.

P.W. 2-Jagadish has deposed; he had gone to Barageramma temple and he was standing near tollgate in front of Barageramma temple.

From the contents of rough sketch marked as Ex. P. 15, we find that Barageramma temple is at a distance from place of accident and it looks improbable that P.W. 2 who was standing near Barageramma temple was able to witness accident,. which took place at about 10 pm. P.W. 2 has admitted that he was a friend of deceased Chandrappa and P.W. 1.

The evidence of P.W. 3-Anilkumar is more or less similar to evidence of P.W. 2. P.W. 3 has deposed; at the time of accident, he was standing near Barageramma temple.

In the discussion made supra, by referring to the contents of rough sketch (Ex. P. 15), I have observed that Barageramma temple is at a distance from place of accident and it was not possible for one to witness accident by standing near Barageramma temple, more particularly when accident had taken place at about 10 p.m., under the cover of darkness.

The evidence of P.W. 4-C.R. Prakash is more or less similar to evidence of P.W. 3. The evidence of P.W. 4 cannot be accepted for the reasons, which I have assigned to reject the evidence of P.W. 3.

P.W. 5-Prabhakar has deposed; at the time of accident, he was standing near a hotel and he witnessed the accident.

From the contents of rough sketch marked as Ex. P. 15, we do not find any hotel near place of accident. Therefore, P.W. 15 could not have witnessed accident from standing near a hotel, which is at a distance of 150 feet from place of accident. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 5 cannot be accepted.

In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted accused. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. In the result, I pass the following:--

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.