Veerabhadra Shetty vs State

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader The petitioner is the accused in the following circumstances: It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.05.2003 at about 6.45 p.m., a boy named Kiran aged about 6, when he was about to cross the road after having purchased candles and biscuits from the shop of one Putta, examined in the trial as PW-3, he was knocked down by the bus driven by the petitioner belonging to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bearing No. KA-09-F-2214. It is alleged that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and therefore, having dashed against the child, had caused injuries and the child had succumbed to the injuries. It is in this background that a case had been registered against him. The petitioner having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the charges were framed against the petitioner and the prosecution had examined five witnesses and marked Exhibits P1 to P9. After recording the statement of the petitioner u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Cr. P.C.'' for brevity), the trial court had framed the following points for consideration:

Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 17.5.2003 at 6.45 p.m., in front of the shop of Putta, when the deceased boy Kiran, aged 6 years was crossing the road in order to go to his house, the accused being the driver of KSRTC bus bearing No. KA. 09/R2214, drove the same from city side in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 279 of IPC?

Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, on the said date, time and place, the accused being the driver of the above said vehicle, having driven the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the said boy and thereby he fell down and sustained grievous injury and succumbed to the same in the hospital and thereby the accused caused his death not amounting to culpable homicide and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 304-A of IPC?

What order?

The trial court held the points framed in the affirmative and sentenced the petitioner to one year''s imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offences punishable u/s 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''the IPC'' for brevity) and simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offences punishable u/s 304A of the IPC. That having been carried in appeal, the Appellate Court had confirmed the same. It is this which is under challenge in the present Revision Petition.

The learned counsel would point out that the courts below have failed to take into account the facts in the true perspective. The learned counsel would straight away draw attention to the sketch filed and marked as Exhibit P5 and would point out that the sketch is drawn much after the accident had occurred and the bus is shown about 100 mts. away from the spot where the boy had fallen down after being knocked down by the bus. It is also pointed out that the bus was on the left side of the road. The footpath that is on the left side of the road and the shop from where the boy is said to have walked on to the road is only 0.50 mts., wide which is not even 2 feet. Hence, it is apparent that the learned counsel would point out that the actual manner in which the accident has occurred is not narrated by any of the witness, except holding that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and had dashed against the boy. It is not the case of the prosecution that the front side of the bus had dashed into the boy, which would have indicated that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, without regard for human life. On the other hand, it is the case of the prosecution that the front wheel of the bus had run over the foot of the child and thereafter he had been knocked down to the ground. Therefore, it is apparent that he had stepped on to the road immediately after making the purchase and the present petitioner would have no clue, having regard to the elevated position of the driver''s seat and the fact that the child was not tall enough to be seen by the petitioner, on stepping on to the road. If the body of the child had brushed after the wheel had run over his foot, it is quite possible the boy was at fault and the petitioner could not be accused of dashing against the child. It was beyond the control of the petitioner and the child who had purchased biscuits was possibly preoccupied and did not notice the bus and had unfortunately stepped into its path though not from the front side, but from the side and when the wheel ran over his foot, he must have also been struck on the head by the body of the bus and therefore, had succumbed to injuries. It could not then be said that the petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving and had caused the accident, without caution and care for human life and hence, the several witnesses merely having stated that the bus had dashed into the boy and that it was moving at much speed, is also belied by the circumstance that the bus came to a halt 100 mts. away., after passers-by started raising cries and on noticing the same, the driver had then stopped the bus and realized that an accident had been caused. This would indicate that the accident was unfortunate and was not on account of any carelessness on the part of the driver. It is a circumstance that the footpath was very narrow and the shop was almost abutting the road and the child had unwittingly walked into the passing bus and which could not be seen by the petitioner.

Though the learned Government Pleader would seek to canvass the arguments while supporting the findings of the courts below, the courts below have not addressed the actual physical location of the accident, but have merely gone by the testimony of the witnesses, who have barely had occasion to witness the accident as it had happened, and the other view as projected above, is also possible.

Therefore, in view of more than one view being possible as to the manner in which the accident has occurred notwithstanding the so-called eye-witness accounts, it is possible to hold the petitioner to be not guilty. The entire blame cannot be cast on the petitioner and having regard to the fact that there was hardly any footpath in existence, there was need for even more care on the part of the petitioner. Hence, it would suffice if the petitioner is held guilty of the offence punishable under the said provisions namely, Section 279 IPC and Section 304-A IPC, to a degree which may not warrant his imprisonment. Hence, while affirming the sentence imposed on him by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court, the same is substantially modified in reducing it to a fine on both counts for offences punishable under Sections 279 IPC and 304-A IPC. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. The punishment imposed on the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 279 IPC shall be reduced to one of fine. Hence, the fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed is affirmed. Insofar as the sentence imposed for the offence punishable u/s 304-A is concerned, the fine of Rs. 2,000/- is affirmed. The sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court shall however be eschewed. The petition stands disposed of in terms as above.