State of Karnataka vs Appanna

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The State has challenged the judgment and order acquitting the respondent for the charges under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC on a trial held by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandya. The facts reveal that on 28.5.2002 at about 5.30 a.m. the respondent was driving the bus bearing Registration No. KA.09/F. 2482 on Bangalore-Mysore road and drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit the cart (with tyre wheels) of PW.1-Thimmegowda from its hind side and thereby caused injuries to PWs.1, 2 and Sagar (the deceased). During the treatment, Sagar succumbed to the injuries. On a complaint filed by PW.1, a case was registered for the aforesaid offences and during investigation the statements were recorded. Inquest on the body of the Sagar was held as per Ex.P2 and the injury certificates Exs.P3 and 4 were collected. Ex.P6 is the spot mahazar. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be laid against the appellant for the said charges.

During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 in their evidence. Statement of the respondent was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record acquitted the respondent for the said charges. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.

I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant-State and also the learned counsel for the respondent.

The point that arises for my consideration is;

Whether the State has made out any grounds to warrant interference in the judgment and order acquitting the respondent for the charges under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC?

It is the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader that PWs.1 to 3 are the injured witnesses and their evidence is sufficient to prove the respondent guilty for the said charges. He submits that the acquittal order by the trial Court is erroneous and illegal.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment and order of the trial Court.

Perusal of the material placed on record reveals that the accident took place on Bangalore-Mysore road and the investigating agency has drawn the sketch of the scene of occurrence and also the spot mahazar. Anyhow, scrutiny of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 reveal that in the early morning approximately at about 5.30 a.m. when the cart belonging to PW.1 was proceeding ahead, the bus driven by the respondent and hit the cart from the hind side and thereby the inmates sustained injuries and Sagar succumbed to the said injuries during treatment.

It is relevant to note that as the incident was before sun rise, it may be that the respondent did not notice the cart which was proceeding ahead from a long distance. When he came near the cart, he must have seen the vehicle and had applied the break. The material placed on record reveals that there is a break mark to an extent of 15 feet at the place of incident. This give the indication that the appellant took care to apply the break when he noticed the cart which was proceeding ahead. In the dark when the cart is proceeding ahead, rather it is difficult for a driver to notice the cart from a long distance. It could have been the duty of the rider of the cart to have a light on the hind side to indicate the moving cart, so that the vehicles coming on the hind side could notice the cart. In the absence of any light, it is rather difficult for a driver to notice a cart from long distance. The fact that the respondent applied the break and there were break marks to an extent of 15 feet on the road, would definitely indicate that the appellant was cautious enough to apply the break when he noticed the cart. These are the circumstances which made the trial Court to grant an order of acquittal.

Perusal of the material placed on record do not reveal the act of rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent. The trial Court has granted the benefit of doubt to the respondent. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal. The Appellate Court will be slow in interfering with such orders. Even if a second view is possible, the one accepted by the trial Court cannot be disturbed. In the context of this principle and considering the grounds mentioned in the judgment and order of the trial Court, I do not find any grounds to warrant interference.

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.