State of Karnataka vs Raju

N. Ananda, J.—The respondent (accused) was tried for an offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and Section 134(a)(b) of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, on the allegations that during intervening night of 31.12.2006 and 1.1.2007, at 0.45 a.m., accused being driver of lorry bearing No. KA 09 5371, drove the lorry at high speed on Mysore-Bangalore road in Siddalingapura Village within jurisdiction of N.R. Traffic Police Station and dashed the lorry against motor cycle ridden by deceased - Kiran and the lorry ran over deceased causing his instantaneous death. The learned Trial Judge has acquitted accused. Therefore, State is before this Court.

I have heard learned Government Advocate for State and learned counsel for accused.

It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that deceased - Kiran, P.W.1, P.W.3 and another person by name Raju were residents of Mysore City and they had gone to a non-vegetarian hotel at Baburayana Koppalu on the eve of new year''s day. The distance between Mysore and Baburayana Koppalu is 30 kms. It is the case of prosecution that during intervening night of 31.12.2006 and 1.1.2007, deceased Kiran, P.W.1 -Vinaya Kumar, P.W.3 - Raju and Umesh were returning on their motor cycle to Mysore. They were riding separate motor cycles. When they were proceeding near Pallavi Daba situated at Siddalingapura Village on Bangalore-Mysore Road, accused drove lorry at high speed and dashed lorry against motor cycle ridden by deceased, from its behind and lorry ran over the deceased, causing his death.

The prosecution has relied on evidence of P.W.1 -Vinaykumar, P.W.3 - Raju and P.W.4 - Investigating Officer and documents prepared during investigation.

P.W.1 - Vinaykumar and P.W.3 - Raju have categorically admitted that at the time of accident, they were proceeding behind the lorry and deceased - Kiran was riding motorcycle ahead of lorry. Therefore, they were not able see as to how accident took place. The prosecution has not adduced circumstantial evidence to prove that lorry had hit motor cycle from behind. The motor vehicle inspection report does not reveal that hind portion on motor cycle was damaged. The evidence of Investigating Officer and the contents of rough sketch do not inspire confidence. As per contents of rough sketch, the accident had taken place in the middle of road. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that instant road is a double road and there is a centre median. The road runs in the direction of north to south. The western half of the road is meant for vehicles plying from south to north. The eastern half of the road is meant for vehicles plying from north to south. From the evidence on record, it is not possible to hold that lorry had dashed the motor cycle ridden by deceased from its behind. The principles of res ipsa loquitur are not applicable to a criminal case and judgment of conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of contents of rough sketch.

The learned Magistrate, due to paucity of evidence has acquitted the accused. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.