STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. B VENKATAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case are extremely distressing. The accused before us is a conductor who at the relevant time was working with the Andhra Pradesh state road transport corporation. He was the conductor in a bus that was transiting through the rural area of Karnataka on the karnool to yadgir road. On the evening of 18-4-1990, this bus had picked up a shepherd by the name of usman sab as one of the passengers. While the bus was making its way, the accused noticed that usman sab had boarded the bus along with a sheep and, the animal started bleating. This infuriated the accused, who for no reason at all flung the animal out of the bus and thereafter threw the owner usman sab after the animal. It transpired that usman sab sustained head injuries and he was found dead. The police were called into the picture and in the course of investigation the accused was charged with the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was put on trial and the main evidence essentially consists of the depositions of p. ws. 1, 2 and 4 supported by the medical evidence. The deceased-usman sab had sustained a head injury which had caused his death. The learned trial judge recorded the finding that the evidence on record suffers from several infirmities and consequently acquitted the accused. It is pertinent for us to observe here that the witnesses in this case, are rustic villagers and undoubtedly, the quality of the evidence was not of a very high order. The learned trial judge has adopted a very rigorous standard of evaluation and has held that the inter se infirmities are self-destructive and consequently the accused was awarded the benefit of an acquittal. The state has assailed the correctness of this decision through the present appeal.

(2.) THE learned state public prosecutor who represents the appellant- state and the learned counsel who represents the respondent-accused both have been heard by us. They have also taken us meticulously through the evidence on record. The first submission canvassed by the appellant's learned counsel is that when an incident of this type takes place in a bus transiting between the villages one cannot expect highly qualified and independent witnesses to be found there. The investigating authorities have produced three persons from the bus itself and they have undisputedly pointed out to the court that the deceased had boarded the bus with the sheep that because of the noise and disturbance created by the animal, the accused lost his temper and virtually threw the sheep and the owner out of the bus. What the learned counsel points out to us is that as far as the basic substratum of the incident is concerned that the evidence is absolutely consistent and there is no dispute about the fact that as regards the other minor descriptive aspects that there are several variations, but it is his submission that there is absolutely no reason why these persons should falsely implicate the accused and more importantly that despite cross-examination their credibility remains unshaken. His submission is that the defence has tried to suggest that this a case of an accident whereby the deceased lost his footing when alighting from the moving bus and because of that he got injured and lost his life, and that allegations have been foisted on the accused. His submission is that the defence, on the present record is rendered inherently false and that a clear case for conviction under Section 304-a of the IPC is made out. The learned counsel has also submitted that the medical evidence is fully corroborated with the oral evidence.

(3.) THE respondent's learned Advocate did point out to us that undoubtedly there are blemishes in the evidence and particularly as far as the incident is concerned. He also points out to us that the incident has taken place late at night and that this is one of the very unfortunate situations, wherein the deceased had attempted to alight from a moving vehicle, and that too carrying a sheep and that obviously he has missed his footing and sustained the injuries. The submission canvassed is that the evidence does not conclusively establish that it was the accused who threw the deceased out of the bus and certainly he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Lastly, he submitted that the injury sustained by usman sab could have equally happened while alighting from a moving bus.