Allowed

Sri. Balachandra Naika v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2024CRL.RP/875/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court acquitted the petitioner convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A IPC for a fatal road accident. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove rash and negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of direct eyewitness testimony and absence of corroborative evidence like tire marks. The revision petition was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner acquitted of offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A IPC. Convictions set aside.

Sri. Balachandra Naika Vs State of Karnataka — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:13526 CRL.RP No. 875 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 875 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. BALACHANDRA NAIKA, S/O RATHNAKARA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O MAHALASAVADA, KAJUBAGH, KARWAR, U.K. - 588 201.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. DINAKARA RAI RAJATH, AMICUS CURIAE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY UPPINANGADI P.S., PUTTUR TQ., REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 16.07.2012 PASSED BY THE ADDL. C.J. AND J.M.F.C., PUTTUR, D.K. IN C.C.NO.1415/2010 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 23.06.2016 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., D.K., MANGALURU, SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K. IN CRL.A.NO.5022/2015 AND ACQUIT HIM OF THE OFFENCES WITH WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED BY THE COURTS BELOW.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:13526 CRL.RP No. 875 of 2016

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner/accused, who has been convicted of offenses punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, is before this Court.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is as follows: On 24.04.2010, at approximately 3:15 p.m., the petitioner drove the Maxicab bearing registration number KA.30.5419 in a rash and negligent manner and collided with a car. As a consequence, the occupants of the Qualis car, namely C.Ws.3, 4, and 5, along with a female child, sustained injuries. The driver of the Qualis car, Shankar @ Veda Shankar, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to these injuries in the hospital on 25.04.2010.

¶23

To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and exhibited documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24(a). The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted the petitioner/accused for the aforementioned offenses. This conviction was confirmed by the Learned Sessions Judge, against which the present revision petition has been filed.

¶24

Sri. Dinakara Raj Rajath, learned amicus curiae for the petitioner, submits that the prosecution has alleged negligence on the part of the petitioner/accused. He argues that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accident was caused due to

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13526 CRL.RP No. 875 of 2016

¶26

rashness. The learned amicus curiae contends that the prosecution has not proved that the accident occurred due to the rash driving of the petitioner/accused, which is a necessary element to convict a person under Section 304-A of IPC. Furthermore, he submits that the prosecution has not established that the accident took place as depicted in the spot mahazar at Ex.P3 and the sketch at Ex.P4. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accident was solely caused by the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner/accused. In support of his arguments, he relies on decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the following cases:

¶27

i. State of Punjab Vs. Balwinder Singh and others reported in (2012) 2 SCC 182.

¶28

ii. Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 9 SCC 284.

¶29

iii. State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182.

¶30

IV. And decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.RP.No.784/2015.

¶31

In contrast, the learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) for the respondent-State contends that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the petitioner/accused. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and have correctly passed the impugned judgment of conviction. Therefore, the judgment does not warrant any interference.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:13526 CRL.RP No. 875 of 2016

¶34

The submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties have been considered, and the trial court records have been thoroughly reviewed.

¶35

P.Ws.1 to 5, who were the occupants of the Qualis car, are both eyewitnesses and injured witnesses. However, during their cross-examination, P.Ws.1 to 5 categorically stated that they only became aware of the accident after hearing the impact when the offending vehicle collided with the Qualis car in which they were traveling. These witnesses did not observe the accident firsthand and, therefore, could not conclusively state that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner/accused.

¶36

P.W.8, who was an occupant of the offending vehicle and worked as a cleaner, did not support the prosecution's case during cross-examination. However, he did state that the petitioner/accused was driving the offending vehicle at high speed and collided with the Qualis car, which was moving slowly. Notably, P.W.9 did not testify that the petitioner/accused was driving rashly at the time of the accident.

¶37

P.W.10, the Investigating Officer, conducted the spot mahazar and prepared the sketch of the accident scene. Ex.P3 is the spot mahazar, and Ex.P4 is the sketch. During crossexamination, P.W.10 admitted that he did not find any tire marks at the scene of the accident. The sketch at Ex.P4 indicated that the Qualis car was traveling on the extreme left side of the national

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13526 CRL.RP No. 875 of 2016

¶39

highway. However, there is no corroborative material to establish that the Qualis car was indeed on the extreme left side of the highway at the time of the accident. Although the accident occurred on 24.04.2010 at 3:15 p.m., the mahazar was drawn on 26.04.2010, creating a time gap that undermines the reliability of the evidence suggesting that the Qualis car was moving on the left side of the highway at the time of the accident.

¶40

The prosecution witnesses have not definitively established that the petitioner/accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, which led to the accident. The only testimony that indicates high speed driving by the petitioner/accused comes from P.W.9, but this alone is insufficient to prove rash and negligent driving beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶41

Given the lack of clear and corroborative evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the petitioner/accused to the required legal standard. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction is not sustainable in law.

¶42

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan at paragraph No.20 has held as follows;

¶43

" In light of the above, now we have to examine if negligence in the case of an accident can be gathered from the attendant circumstances. We have already held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is equally applicable to the cases of accident and not merely to the civil jurisprudence. Thus, these principles can equally be extended to criminal cases provided the attendant circumstances and basic facts are proved. It may also be noticed that either the accident must be proved by proper and cogent evidence or

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:13526 CRL.RP No. 875 of 2016

¶45

it should be an admitted fact before this principle can be applied. This doctrine comes to aid at a subsequent stage where it is not clear as to how and due to whose negligence the accident occurred. The factum of accident having been established, the court with the aid of proper evidence may take assistance of the attendant circumstances and apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The mere fact of occurrence of an accident does not necessarily imply that it must be owed to someone's negligence. In cases where negligence is the primary cause, it may not always be that direct evidence to prove it exists. In such cases, the circumstantial evidence may be adduced to prove negligence. Circumstantial evidence consists of facts that necessarily point to negligence as a logical conclusion rather than providing an outright demonstration thereof. Elements of this doctrine may be stated as:

¶46

The event would not have occurred but for someone's negligence.

¶47

The evidence on record rules out the possibility that actions of the victim or some third party could be the reason behind the event.

¶48

The accused was negligent and owed a duty of care towards the victim."

¶49

Given these circumstances, it is essential to revisit the evidence presented:

¶50

Eyewitness Accounts: P.Ws.1 to 5, who were the occupants of the Qualis car, did not witness the actual moment of collision. They only became aware of the accident after hearing the impact. Their testimonies do not provide direct evidence of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner/accused.

¶51

P.W.8 Testimony: Although P.W.8, who was in the offending vehicle, mentioned that the vehicle was driven at high speed, he did not categorically state that the petitioner was driving rashly or negligently.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:13526 CRL.RP No. 875 of 2016

¶54

Investigative Evidence: P.W.10, the Investigating Officer, conducted the spot mahazar and prepared the sketch of the accident scene. The absence of tire marks at the scene and the delayed mahazar (drawn two days after the accident) weaken the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence. Additionally, there is no corroborative material to support the claim that the Qualis car was on the extreme left side of the highway at the time of the accident.

¶55

Legal Standards: For a conviction under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner/accused was driving rashly and negligently, causing the accident. The high-speed driving mentioned by P.W.9 alone does not meet this threshold.

¶56

In light of the insufficient evidence and the lack of corroboration to support the prosecution's claims, it becomes evident that the petitioner/accused’s conviction is not substantiated. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court's judgments, therefore, warrant interference and reconsideration. The petitioner/accused should be acquitted on the grounds of insufficient evidence establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

¶59

ii. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 16.07.2012 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, D.K in C.C.No.1415/2010 and judgment and order dated 23.06.2016 passed by the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, sitting at Puttur, D.K. in Crl.A.No.5022/2015 are hereby

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:13526 CRL.RP No. 875 of 2016

¶61

¶62

set aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the aforesaid offences.

¶63

iii. Bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled.

¶64

iv. Appreciating the services rendered by the learned amicus curiae Sri. Dinakar Raj Rajath., the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is directed to pay the honorarium of Rs.15,000/to him within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

PNV,RKA

Sri. Balachandra Naika v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Balachandra Naika v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.G. Veena Vs the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

Mahammad Rashid Vs the State of Karnataka

H Raviprakash Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Darshan a v Vs State of Karnataka Health and Family Welfare Department

Sri.v.N.Raju Vs Smt.Mini Krishna Kumar

Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka