Allowed¶42

Shivanna v. State by Hunsur Town Police

Supreme Court18 Aug 20102010 INSC 526 · [2010] 10 S.C.R. 4102010 INSC 526

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Acquittal for want of evidence; rash and negligent driving; Sections 304-A, 279, 337 and 338 IPC; overturning of overloaded truck on Hunsur bye-pass, Karnataka; primacy of ocular evidence of injured occupants (PWs 5, 6, 7) over site plan Ext. P.10; interference with three concurrent convictions despite grant of leave under Article 136; criminal findings no effect on civil proceedings arising from the accident.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; conviction of the appellant set aside and acquittal directed; bail bonds discharged as the appellant is on bail. ¶42

Shivanna versus State by Hunsur Town Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Supreme Court (2010)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; conviction of the appellant set aside and acquittal directed; bail bonds discharged as the appellant is on bail.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant, a truck driver, for offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, recorded in three concurrent judgments of the courts below, could stand where the cumulative statements of the three primary witnesses (PWs 5, 6 and 7) did not inculpate him. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

A cumulative reading of the evidence of PWs 5, 6 and 7 shows that the appellant cannot be fastened with any allegation of wrong doing; in the light of the statements of the three primary witnesses there is no evidence which inculpates him (PW.5 clarified in cross-examination that the vehicle was going at normal speed; PW.6 stated brakes were applied to avoid dashing into a vehicle going ahead; PW.7 gave a statement which completely dislodged the prosecution story).

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The plea founded on the site plan (Ext. P.10) that the appellant, while overtaking, ignored a duty of extra care was rejected: the site plan only indicates the place where the accident happened, nothing more can be read into it, and in the face of the prosecution's own eyewitness evidence no inferences can be drawn, the ocular evidence of those travelling in the vehicle having primary importance.

¶40

Key takeaways

This is a case of no evidence, calling for interference at any stage, notwithstanding the three concurrent convictions recorded by the courts below.ratio¶40
Clarification: as the matter before the Court is a criminal appeal, the findings recorded herein would not have any effect on any civil proceedings pending with respect to the accident.obiter¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Shivanna v. State by Hunsur Town Police, Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2003, decided August 18, 2010 ([2010] 10 S.C.R. 410) — Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ.: The appellant, driving a stone-laden truck on the State highway bye-passing Hunsur town (15.09.1992), allegedly lost control, the vehicle overturned, and one occupant died while seven were injured. He was convicted under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 and 338 IPC by the Trial Court, the conviction was affirmed by the First Appellate Court, and the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the criminal revision (Crl. R.P. No. 469 of 2002) in limine. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held this to be a case of no evidence calling for interference at any stage: the cumulative evidence of injured eyewitnesses PWs 5, 6 and 7 showed the accused could not be fastened with any allegation of wrong doing (PW.5 admitted in cross-examination the truck was moving at normal speed; PW.6 stated the horn had been blown and brakes were applied to avoid dashing into a vehicle ahead; PW.7's statement completely dislodged the prosecution story). The State's reliance on the site plan (Ext. P.10) to infer rash overtaking was rejected — the site plan proves only the place of the accident and the ocular evidence of those travelling in the vehicle must be given primary importance. Conviction set aside; acquittal directed; bail bonds discharged. It was clarified that the findings would not affect any pending civil proceedings relating to the accident.

[2010] 10 S.C.R. 410

SHIVANNA

STATE BY HUNSUR TOWN POLICE (Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2003)

¶6

¶7

AUGUST 18, 2010

¶8

[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.]

¶9

Penal Code, 1860:

¶10

¶11

ss.304-A, 279, 337 and 338-A truck loaded with stones and being driven by accused overturned leading to death of one and injuries to seven others - Conviction by trial court - Affirmed by appellate court as a/so by High Court - HELD: 0 This is a case of no evidence, calling for interference at any stage - In the light of the statements given by the three primary witnesses there is no evidence which inculpates the accused - A cumulative reading of their evidence shows that the accused cannot be fastened with any a/legation of wrong E doing - PW 5 stated that the offending vehicle was going at a fast speed but in the cross-examination he clarified that it was going at a normal speed and that he had not seen the lorry going ahe"!d but the brakes had been applied by the accused - PW 6, on the other hand, stated that the accused had been blowing the horn for some time and that there was F a vehicle going ahead and the accused had no option but to apply the brakes failing which he would have dashed against the vehicle going ahead - PW 7, however, gave a statement which completely dislodged the prosecution story - Conviction set side and accused acquitted - It is clarified that G as this is a criminal appeal, the findings recorded herein would not have any effect on the civil proceedings, if any, pending with respect to the accident - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Three concurrent judgments of courts below set aside.

¶12

¶13

410

¶14

SHIVANNA v. STATE BY HUNSUR TOWN POLICE 411

¶15

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal A No. 445 of 2003.

¶16

From the Judgment & Order dated 26.06.2002 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. R.P. No. 469 of 2002.

¶17

Ananthamurthy (for P.P. Singh) for the Appellant.

¶18

¶19

Sanjay R. Hegde, Ramesh Kr. Mishra, K. Joshi for the Respondent.

¶20

The following Order of the Court was delivered

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

When we took up this matter at the initial stage we were surprised as to how and why leave had been granted by this Court despite three concurrent judgments of the Courts below recording a conviction against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellant has however pointed out that this had happened as there was absolutely no evidence against the appellant and the findings recorded by the courts below particularly the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court (the High Court having dismissed the criminal revision in limini) were completely outside the evidence and based on inferences which did not flow therefrom.

¶26

¶27

¶28

The facts are as under:

¶29

The appellant was a truck driver and was plying his vehicle fully loaded with stones on the State highway bye-passing Hunsur town on the 15th September, 1992. As per the prosecution the vehicle allegedly overturned and four persons sitting in the cabin and three on the stones in the rear part of the truck were thrown out, leading to the death of one sitting in the rear and injuries to seven others. The appellant was accordingly brought to trial for the aforesaid offences.

¶30

¶31

¶32

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶33

(2010] 10 S.C.R.

¶34

412

¶35

A The prosecution in support of its case relied on the evidence of ten witnesses and several documents were also exhibited towards the ev!.dence. The courts below placed reliance on the statements of PWs. 5, 6 and 7, all injured, who were travelling in the vehicle and had, therefore, witnessed the B accident. These PWs admitted that the accident had happened as the driver of a truck going directly ahead of the offending vehicle had suddenly applied his brakes on which the appellant had to brake his vehicle as well which caused it to overturn on account of its heavy load. PW.7 in fact went even a little further c and deposed that if the appellant had not applied the brakes his truck too would also dashed against the truck going ahead.

¶36

We have gone through the evidence of these three witnesses very carefully with the help of the learned counsel for the parties. We find that a cumulative reading of their evidence D shows that the appellant cannot be fastened with any allegation of wrong doing. PW.5 stated that the offending vehicle was going at a fast speed but in the cross examination he clarified that it was going at a normal speed and that he had not seen the lorry going ahead but the brakes had been applied by the E appellant. PW.6 on the other hand stated that the appellant had been blowing the horn for some time and that there was a vehicle going ahead of the offending vehicle and the appellant had no option but to apply the brakes failing which he would have dashed against the vehicle going ahead. PW.7, as already F indicated above, however gave a statement which completely dislodged the prosecution story. We are therefore of the opinion that in the light of the statements given by the three primary witnesses there is no evidence which inculpates the appellant.

¶37

G Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, the learned counsel for the State of Karnataka, has however referred to Ext. P .1 O (the site plan) to contend that as the accident had happened on a State highway on the Mysore bye-pass and the fact that a vehicle was going ahead of the offending vehicle would have been visible to the appellant and as the accident had happened as he was

¶38

¶39

SHIVANNA v. STATE BY HUNSUR TOWN POLICE 413

¶40

attempting to overtake that vehicle, a duty to take extra care lay on him but he had ignored this basic principle. We are unable to accept this plea. The site plan only indicates the place where the accident happened and nothing more can be read into it. In the face of the eye witness evidence produced by the prosecution itself no inferences can be drawn as in such a situation the ocular evidence of those traveling in the vehicle has to be given primary importance. We are of the opinion that this is a· case of no evidence, calling for interference at any stage.

¶41

We, ~owever, clarify that as the matter before us is a criminal appeal, the findings recorded herein would not have any effect on the civil proceedings, if any, pending with respect to the accident.

¶42

We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant and direct his acquittal. As the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.

R.P.

Appeal allowed.