State vs Raghavendra

B.V. Pinto, J.—Heard Sri. G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP for the State regarding admission of the case. Since, the matter would be disposed of, notice to respondent is dispensed with. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 29.01.2013. passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Kundapura in Criminal Case No. 1002/2009 acquitting the accused for the offence punishable u/s 279 and 304(A) of IPC.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.05.2009 at about 8.45 p.m., the accused being the driver of bus No. KA-20B-1048 drove the same from Kundapura and at Koteshwara Bus stand, while the passengers were alighting from the bus, he drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, before the conductor gave any signal. As a result of which, one passenger by name K. Narayana Shetty who was alighting from the bus through its front door fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on the back of his head and subsequently he was re-moved to the hospital, but the said passenger succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment at KMC Hospital, Manipal. Hence, it is alleged that the respondent being the driver of the vehicle was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and therefore he was charge sheeted for the offence u/s 279 and 304(A) IPC.

After appearance of the accused before the Court, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. Thereafter, the prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 8 witnesses as PW-1 to 8 and got marked Exs-P1 to P10. The defence has got examined one Raghavendra as DW-1. The learned Magistrate after hearing the prosecution and the defence came to the conclusion that there is no negligence on the part of the driver in driving the vehicle and hence acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the State has filed this appeal.

Sri. G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP submits that when the passenger was getting down from the front door of the vehicle, the driver ought to have been cautious that he moves the vehicle only after all the passengers get down from the bus or alight into the bus. Whereas., he has moved the bus negligently and rashly in starting the bus before even the passengers get down from the bus. Hence, he submits that the case of the prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He also submits that PW-2 Mohammad Shaffi is a eye-witness for the incident being a shop keeper which is in front of the place where the incident happened. PW-2 has completely supported the case of the prosecution. He also submits that the driver of the vehicle has not denied the driving of the bus which has been corroborated by the owner of the bus stating that on the date of the occurrence of the incident, accused was the driver of the bus. Hence, he submits that the order of acquittal deserves to be reversed.

On a careful consideration of the entire judgment and the deposition of witnesses, it is seen that though PW-1 who has stated that he was also a passenger of the bus and PW-2 has also supported the case of the prosecution that even before the passenger got down from the bus, the driver started the bus, it is seen that the deceased was an elderly person and that he was sitting in the seat meant for disabled persons in the front side and evidence has been produced to show that deceased was sleeping till the bus started. Thereafter, while the driver of the bus was about to negotiate the signal after stopping for the same, the deceased suddenly got up from his seat and hurriedly tried to get down and as a consequence of which he fell down from the bus and his head dashed against the Tar road which is the cause of death of the deceased. The evidence has been so adduced to the effect that the driver of the bus have to look on the front side of the bus while driving the bus and it is not the responsibility of the driver to look into the activities of the passengers which actually is the responsibility of the conductor. Hence, the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that having regard to the evidence on records, no negligence or rashness can be attributed to the accused and therefore he has come to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

I have gone through the evidence on record. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate is reasonable and proper and there is no perversity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the judgment is based on the evidence on record and also in accordance with the settled principles of law. This being the position, though two views are possible, in an appeal against an order of acquittal, the Appellate Court would not replace its own view to the one taken by the trial Court and in that view of the matter, there is no material on record to upset the well considered judgment passed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in summoning the accused before the Court, who is a driver and keeping this matter pending for years on the file of the High Court. In that view of the matter, this appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.