B.R. PRADEEP, S/O. B.A. RAMANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS STATION OFFICER, TRAFFIC POLICE STATION HASSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner has challenged the concurrent findings of his conviction and modified sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304 -A IPC.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under: It is on 22.8.1997 at about 8.35 a.m. the petitioner (the accused) was driving a Tempo bearing Reg.No. KA -02 -A -3658 on Bangalore -Mangalore Road and while the vehicle was near Sun Light Match. Factory, the vehicle capsized and in the said accident, an inmate by name Praveen Kumar succumbed to the injuries on the spot and many others sustained injuries. PW, 1 Mohan submitted his complaint Ex.P.1 about the rash and negligent act of the petitioner in driving the said vehicle and during the course of the investigation, the inquest mahazar Ex.P.8 was held and the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. The injured were sent to the hospital for treatment. The statements of the witnesses were recorded The vehicle was examined by the Motor Vehicle's Inspector and Ex.P. 10 the report was collected. A charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 -A by PW. 11. To prove the guilt, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked the documents Exs. P. 1 to P.10. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused took the defense of total denial. The Trial Court after hearing the parties and or appreciation of the material on record, convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC and ordered sentence of imprisonment and fine. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the First Appellate Court in Crl. A. No. 113/2003 and the said appeal was allowed in part affirming the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304 -A IPC and ordered the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The conviction for the other offences were set aside. Aggrieved by the findings, the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) THE prosecution to prove the guilt examined PWs.1 to 5, 7 and 9 the inmates of the vehicle and they consistently state that the vehicle was driven in a high speed and it was raining at the time of the incident and the vehicle capsized and thereby, Praveen Kumar (the deceased) succumbed to the injuries at the spot and the rest of the inmates sustained both grievous and simple injuries. It is not a case of collision between the vehicles. So, in such circumstances, as to the cause of the accident, it is within the knowledge of the accused, the petitioner herein and it is for him to explain the reason how the vehicle: capsized. The cross examination of the witnesses does not reveal any suggestion assigning the reasons for the accident. Even the perusal of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. does not offer any explanation as to why the accident occurred. Thereby, the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies and the presumption could be raised that the accident was due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioner.