State of Karnataka vs Jayarama Shetty

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The State has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order acquitting the respondent for the charge under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC on a trial held by the JMFC, Mangalore. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:

On 9.5.2011 at 12.30 noon the respondent was driving the lorry bearing Registration No. KA-25 B. 2564 and it was proceeding from Mangalore side towards Moodabidri. On the opposite direction an Ambulance bearing registration No. KA. 2B-4608 was coming and it is alleged that the respondent drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Ambulance which in turn hit the Zen car which was on its backside and an inmate of the ambulance succumbed to the injuries and many others sustained injuries. On a complaint filed investigation was held and a charge sheet was laid against the driver of the lorry.

In the course of the investigation the spot mahazar was held, the vehicles were inspected. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After inquest, post mortem examination was held on the body of the deceased and on completion of the investigation a charge sheet was laid against the respondent.

During the trial the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 16, got marked the documents Exs. P1 to P17. After recording the statement of the respondent u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the trial Court heard the respective counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record acquitted the respondent of the said charges. It is against the order of acquittal the State has preferred this appeal.

Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader.

PWs. 1 to 6 are the witnesses including the injured. PWs. 1 to 5 are the inmates of the Ambulance, whereas, PW 6 was a chance witness. It is the defence of the respondent that when the lorry was proceeding on the proper side of the road, the Ambulance came from the opposite direction in a high speed overtaking Zen car and hit the lorry on its right side. Consequently, the inmates of the Ambulance sustained injuries and one person died. The Motor Vehicle Inspector''s reports have been produced at Exs. P13 and 14. The Zen car which was shifted from the place of incident was seized in a garage and perusal of the damage reveals that the right front side of the vehicle had sustained damages. Likewise, there was damage to the right side portion of the lorry which was coming from the opposite direction. If really there was no overtaking of Zen car by the driver of the Ambulance and if the Zen car was behind the Ambulance, by hitting the Ambulance to the Zen Car it is the front portion of the vehicle which will be damaged. The fact that there was damage to the right front portion of the Zen Car itself indicates that the Ambulance was on the right front side indicating that the driver of the Ambulance was overtaking the Zen car and hit the lorry which was coming from the opposite direction. The existing circumstances and the damage to the vehicle support the defence of the respondent about the Ambulance hitting the lorry while overtaking the Zen car. As could be seen from the sketch Ex. P15, the spot of the accident is in the middle of the road and the Ambulance was at a distance of 10 feet from the eastern tar portion of the road, towards the western portion is the spot of the accident. Conveniently, the Zen car was shifted from the place of the incident and these circumstances will lead to the only inference that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Weighing the oral evidence in the context of the aforesaid circumstances reveal that the rash and negligent act on the part of the respondent has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is for this reason that the trial Court had given the benefit to the respondent and I do not find any justifiable grounds to warrant interference by admitting this appeal.

In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.