Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. Sri Thaslim Ahammed

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2023CRL.A/935/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the State's criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of a lorry driver accused of rash driving and causing death. The bench held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to the inconsistency of eyewitness testimony and lack of fair investigation regarding the deceased's movements.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed and the impugned judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused was confirmed.

State of Karnataka Vs Sri Thaslim Ahammed — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

CRL.A.NO.935/2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.935 OF 2013

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. THASLIM AHAMMED, S/O ABDUL SALAM, AGED 51 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.CTX-9007, R/O NEW MANDLI N.T.ROAD, R/O KUMBARA KERI BHARMAPPA NAGARA, M.K.K.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶14

…..RESPONDENT (BY SMT.SHARADA N., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO a) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 17.06.2013 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.799/2012, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279 AND 304(A) OF IPC AND; b) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 17.06.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. CIVIL AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.799/2012, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT OF THE OFFENCE

¶16

CRL.A.NO.935/2013

¶17

¶18

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279 AND 304 (A) OF I.P.C. AND; c) BE PLEASED TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENT ABOVE NAMED FOR ALL THE OFFENCES FOR WHICH HE WAS CHARGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 11.07.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

This appeal filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. is by the State challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 17.06.2013, in C.C.No.799/2012 on the file of II Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC., Shivamogga, whereby the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of I.P.C.

¶22

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

¶23

Based on the complaint filed by Sri.V.Suresh,

¶24

and after completing investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against accused alleging that on 25.01.2012, at 8.30 p.m., deceased Venkatesh was proceeding on his

¶25

CRL.A.NO.935/2013

¶26

¶27

Bajaj M80 vehicle bearing registration No.KA-17/H-8088 in front of Pooja Medicals on N.T.Road, Shivamogga,. At that time accused being the driver of lorry bearing registration No.CTX-9007 came in a high speed in a rash or negligent manner from New Mandli side and dashed against the Bajaj M80. As a result of the accident, deceased Venkatesh fell down on the road and the right front and rear tier of the lorry ran over him and he died on the spot.

¶28

Accused entered appearance and contested the matter. He pleaded not guilty to the charges leveled against him and claimed trial.

¶29

In support of prosecution case, 7 witnesses are examined as PWs-1 to 7 and Exs.P1 to 11(a) are marked for the prosecution.

¶30

During the course of his statement, accused has denied the incriminating evidence.

¶31

Vide the judgment and order dated

¶32

17.06.2013, the trial Court acquitted the accused holding

¶33

CRL.A.NO.935/2013

¶34

¶35

that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against him beyond reasonable doubt.

¶36

8. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has

¶37

filed this appeal contending that the impugned judgment and order is contrary to law, facts and probabilities of the case and liable to be set aside. The trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused. The reasons assigned by the trial Court are not proper. PW-1 is an eye witness, PW-2 is a spot mahazar witness and PW-3 is the complainant. He filed the complaint after coming to know about the accident. PW-6 is the motor vehicle inspector and PWs-5 and 7 are Investigating Officers. All of them except PW4 have supported the prosecution case. In the light of the same, the trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused

¶38

giving him benefit of doubt and that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Even otherwise the impugned order passed by the trial Court suffers from legal infirmity and prays to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order, convict the accused and sentence him appropriately.

¶39

CRL.A.NO.935/2013

¶40

¶41

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing

¶42

for the accused has supported the impugned judgment and order contending that on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has come to a correct conclusion in acquitting the accused and prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶43

Heard elaborate arguments of both sides and perused the record.

¶44

The State has challenged the impugned

¶45

judgment and order contending that despite the material witnesses supporting the prosecution case, the trial Court has acquitted the accused and it is a fit case for interference by this Court.

¶46

On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused supported the judgment and order and submitted that it is doubtful that PW4 is an eyewitness to

¶47

the incident. At least his presence at the scene of occurrence is not spoken to by any other witnesses. It has come in the evidence that before the incident, the

¶48

CRL.A.NO.935/2013

¶49

¶50

deceased visited the medical shop and the investigating officer has not chosen to cite any of the inmates. Any of the person working in the said shop, would have supported the prosecution case and in the absence of fair investigation, the trial Court has rightly rejected the prosecution case and acquitted the accused. There are no justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and pray to dismiss the appeal.

¶51

PW1-Armugam and PW4-Manjunatha are cited as eyewitnesses to the incident. PW1-Armugam has supported the prosecution case and deposed that at the time of incident, he and PW4-Manjunatha were standing in Pooja Medicals. He saw deceased going on his motorbike from bus stand side towards a new Mandli side. At that time, lorry driven by the accused in a high speed, in a rash or negligent manner came from Theerthahalli side and proceeding towards bus stand side and in order to overtake another lorry, went to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the motorcycle of deceased. As a result of the accident, deceased died on

¶52

CRL.A.NO.935/2013

¶53

¶54

the spot. Since the deceased was from his area, he informed the son of the deceased.

¶55

During his cross-examination, PW1 has claimed that before the investigating officer, he has stated that while overtaking another lorry, accused came to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the motorcycle of deceased. However, in his statement before the investigating officer, this fact is not forthcoming. It is clearly an improvement made before the Court.

¶56

PW4-Manjunatha who is cited as another eyewitness has not supported the prosecution case and denied that he has seen the accident. He specifically deposed that he came to the spot after coming to know about the accident. Though he is treated as hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution, nothing worthy is elicited that would be of some help to improve the case of the prosecution. Not even a suggestion is made to him that when the incident took place, he was present at

¶57

CRL.A.NO.935/2013

¶58

¶59

Pooja Medicals along with PW1-Armugam. This would have supported the testimony of PW1.

¶60

16. During the cross-examination of PW1, the

¶61

defence has elicited that deceased was proceeding from Pooja Medical. The defence has taken a specific defence that deceased used to be intoxicated, which suggestion is denied by PW1. He has expressed ignorance as to what deceased purchased from the medical shop. In fact, the investigating officer is also cross-examined on this aspect, wherein he has deposed that according to him deceased had left from Pooja Medicals. If really deceased visited the medical shop and accident took place after he left the medical shop, the investigating officer ought to have examined any of the persons from the medical shop. It could have supported the testimony of PW1Armugam.

¶62

If deceased was coming from Pooja Medicals,

¶63

then in the sketch, it is wrongly shown that he was coming from bus stand side. The defence has taken a specific plea that since deceased was entering the main

¶64

CRL.A.NO.935/2013

¶65

¶66

road from a smaller road, he was supposed to stop, wait and watch vehicle coming from both sides and then enter the main road, and on the other hand, he suddenly rushed to the main road, resulting in the accident. In the light of the answer elicited during the cross-examination and the fact that the evidence of PW1-Armugam is not supported by any other witness, more particularly PW4Manjunatha, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The findings given by the trial Court is consistent with the evidence brought on record. In the result, there are no justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Consequently, the appeal fails and accordingly it is liable to be dismissed. Hence the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

Appeal filed by the State u/sec.378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶69

The impugned judgment and order of the trial Court is hereby confirmed.

¶70

CRL.A.NO.935/2013

¶71

¶72

Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records with copy of this judgment

¶73

forthwith.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

RR/CLK

State of Karnataka v. Sri Thaslim Ahammed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Sri Thaslim Ahammed

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

Sri N Rajappa Vs Sri Manu Ittina

Sri. K. v. Bhaskar Murthy Vs Sri. K. Lakshminarasimha Murthy

Pandu T Mendon Vs Udaya Bhaskar

Vijay Basappa Andanashetti Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkataramaiah Vs Sri Puttaswamy

Govinda Vs Puttaiah