State appeal against acquittal of an auto rickshaw driver charged under Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC for a fatal accident. The High Court found no wound certificate for the injured complainant and non-examination of injured eyewitness Kusuma fatal to prosecution; upheld acquittal and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:46521 CRL.A No. 1313 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1313 OF 2019 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, PUTTUR TRAFFIC P.S., PUTTUR, D.K REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01
Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: high court of karnataka
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)
AND:
ASHRAF, S/O LATE SAMPI BEARY, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O KEMMINJE HOUSE, CHIKKAMUDNOOR VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K - 574 201
…APPELLANT
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N.S. SAMPANGI RAMAIAH
AMICUS CURIAE FOR RESPONDENT (ABSENT))
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) CR.PC PRAYING TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.01.2019, PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND A.C.J.M., AT PUTTUR, D.K IN C.C.NO.535/2014, ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENE P/U/S 279, 338 AND 304A OF IPC.
THIS CRL.A, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Appellant/State has preferred this appeal impugning the judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed in CC No.535/2014 on the file of the learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge and A.C.J.M, Puttur, D.K., acquitting respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC.
The inmate of auto rickshaw by name Dhananjaya had sustained head injury and injury to his face. The other inmate Kusuma had sustained bleeding injury over her right leg. The other inmates of auto rickshaw have also sustained injuries. All the injured including the complainant were taken to the
Government Hospital at Puttur. The injured Dhananjaya had later succumbed to the injury in the hospital. Therefore, the informant requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action against the accused for his rash and negligent driving and causing the death of Dhananjaya. The FIR was registered and investigation was under taken. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed for the offences above said offences.
"Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality and calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
the accused was the driver of auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No. KA-21-A-4853 and had driven the same on 09.05.2013 at 6.45
pm in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle ridden by PW1, as a result of which, PW1 sustained injuries. Inmates of auto rickshaw i.e., one Dhananjaya
sustained fatal injuries and later succumbed to the same in the hospital. One more inmate of auto rickshaw by name Kusuma sustained injuries and was admitted to the hospital. PW1 states in the first information that other inmates of auto rickshaw have also sustained injuries.
been examined to prove the contention of the prosecution. Strangely, the prosecution has produced Ex.P.20 wound certificate pertaining to Kusuma who sustained fracture of right leg and was admitted to the hospital on 09.05.2013 and discharged on 10.05.2013. But nowhere in the wound certificate, the history of injury is mentioned as due to road traffic accident. Moreover, the said injured eye witness is not examined before the Court for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Non examination of injured eye witness is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Even though PW1 contended that he has sustained injury and was taken to the hospital, there is no would certificate pertaining to him. In view of all these facts and circumstances, the case made out by the prosecution is not beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is to be held that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled for acquittal.
no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE
BH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 59
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal for rash and negligent driving causing death suffers from perversity or illegality warranting interference?
5 provisions across 2 enactments
The State by Police Sub-Inspector, Puttur Traffic P.S., Puttur, D.K rep. by State Public Prosecutor
Ashraf, S/o Late Sampi Beary
M G Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
