Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. Santosh Eeru Gouda

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2019CRL.A/100056/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the State’s criminal appeal against acquittal in a motor vehicle rash and negligent death case. The Court upheld the Trial Court’s finding that prosecution evidence was insufficient as key eyewitnesses turned hostile or did not witness the accident.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

State of Karnataka Vs Santosh Eeru Gouda — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100056 OF 2019

¶5

BETWEEN STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, KUMTA POLICE STATION, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADOVCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP) AND SANTOSH EERU GOUDA AGE: MAJOR, R/O: DIVALLI, KUMTA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT

¶6

(BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶7

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 02.03.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

¶8

: 2 :

¶9

AND JMFC, KUMTA IN C.C. NO.454/2012, TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 02.03.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUMTA IN C.C. NO.454/2012 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.279, 304(A) OF IPC AND SECTION 187, 3, 181, 146 R/W SECTION 196 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.

¶10

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

Though this appeal is listed for hearing on interlocutory application, with the consent of learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent/accused, the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶13

The present appeal has been preferred by

¶14

the State being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal, dated 02.03.2018, passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kumta, in C.C. No.454/2012 whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections

¶15

: 3 :

¶16

279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 187, 3 read with Section 181, and 146 read with Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶17

I have heard learned High Court Government

¶18

Pleader for the appellant-State and learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

¶19

The gist of the complaint is that on

¶20

04.03.2012, at about 5.30 p.m., the accused drove the goods rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-14/9498 without licence at great speed, rashly and negligently, dashed against a boy and caused grievous injuries, and ran away from the spot. Thereafter the injured boy was shifted to a hospital and subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of a complaint lodged, a case was registered against the accused. Thereafter, an investigation was completed and chargesheet was laid as against the accused.

¶21

: 4 :

¶22

The Trial Court took cognizance of the

¶23

offence, secured the presence of the accused and, after recording the plea, posted the case for trial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, got examined 12 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked 19 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.19. Thereafter, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances. He did not choose examine any witness on his behalf. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that there is no sufficient material to bring home the guilt of the accused, and therefore, acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved the State is before this Court.

¶24

It is the submission of the learned High

¶25

Court Government Pleader that P.Ws.4, 6, 11 and 12

¶26

: 5 :

¶27

are the eyewitnesses to the alleged accident; they have categorically stated about the rash and negligent act of the accused resulting in the accident and this aspect has not been properly considered by the Trial Court. It is his further submission that P.W.7 is the owner of the vehicle; he has stated that the accused is his brother; as on the said date, he was driving the vehicle and he has pleaded guilty in another case for handing over the motor vehicle to a person without licence and that this itself goes to show that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent act of the respondent. The Trial Court without considering the material placed on record has come to a wrong conclusion. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and the accused may be convicted for the alleged offences.

¶28

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently argued and submitted that

¶29

: 6 :

¶30

the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below has rightly acquitted the accused and there are no good grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶31

I have carefully and cautiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.

¶32

On a close reading of the records, it is seen that the prosecution to prove its case examined 12 witnesses and got marked 19 documents. P.W.1 is the complainant; he has supported the case of the prosecution. In his evidence, P.W.1 has deposed that he came to the place of accident after it had occurred; on the basis of say of P.W.6-Nagesh Mablu Gowda, he came to know that the said rickshaw ran over the boy and as a result, the boy sustained injuries. This clearly goes to

¶33

: 7 :

¶34

show that he (P.W.1) is not the eyewitnesses and his evidence does not throw any light on the case of the prosecution. P.W.2 is the panch witness to spot mahazar; he has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as hostile. So also, P.W.3 is also a panch witness and he has also turned hostile.

¶35

P.W.4 is an eyewitness. Though, in his evidence, he has deposed regarding the alleged incident, he has admitted the fact that he has not seen the accident. P.W.5 is the doctor who examined the deceased and declared him as dead. P.W.6 is an eye witness to the incident, he has also deposed in his evidence that he came to the place of accident only after the accident had occurred. P.W.7 is the brother of the accused and the owner of the rickshaw and he has deposed only with regard to owning of the vehicle by him and giving the said vehicle to the accused. P.W.8 is

¶36

: 8 :

¶37

the Investigating Officer who investigated the case and filed chargesheet. P.W.9 is the RTO who examined the said rickshaw; he has given an endorsement that the said vehicle was in a fit and in plying condition. P.W.10 is the P.S.I. who registered the case on the basis of the complaint. P.Ws.11 and 12 are the eyewitnesses; they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as hostile.

¶38

By going through the evidence which has been produced, they clearly go to show that the material eyewitnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as hostile. The witnesses have specifically deposed that they came to the place of the accident after the accident had occurred. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the said rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-14/9498 was not in a fit condition to ply it on the road, but P.W.9-R.T.O. has given the certificate that it was in a fit

¶39

: 9 :

¶40

state to ply on the road. All these material does not substantiate the case of the prosecution so as to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Taking into consideration the said evidence, the Trial Court has come to the right conclusion and has rightly acquitted the accused.

¶41

I have carefully and cautiously gone through

¶42

the judgment and order of the Trial Court. The judgment and order of the Trial Court is based upon the evidence. There is no error or illegality committed by the Trial Court in passing the impugned judgment and order, the same deserves to be confirmed and accordingly, it is confirmed.

¶43

The appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Kms

State of Karnataka v. Santosh Eeru Gouda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Santosh Eeru Gouda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka Vs Shridhar Rama Naik

Sri Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Mubin W/O Nazir Ahmed Shaikh Vs Mansur S/O Khutbuddin Nadaf

State of Karnataka Vs Shivabasanagouda

State of Karnataka Vs Chandra Shekar Hiremath

State of Karnataka Vs Mahammad Jahid S/O Mahammad Yakoob