STATE Vs. S DODDA BASAVANA GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the respondent-accused.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows: That on 8.4.2005, the respondent, who was the owner and driver of a goods auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-34/5427 was proceeding from Kuntanahal towards Bellary and at that point of time, CW.1 and CW.11 to 14 and one Smt.Bibi and others were travelling in the goods auto-rickshaw, which was not permitted to carry any such passengers. It is alleged that the accused was driving the auto-rickshaw at a very high speed and suddenly had lost control over the vehicle and it had turned turtle, as a result of the same, CW.1, CW.11 to 14 and 3 children had sustained injuries. Smt.Bibi had sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The Sub-Inspector of Police of Basaveshwara Police station had received the message as regards the accident and on making inquiries and recording the statements of several witnesses, registered a case in Crime No.20/2005 and took up further proceedings after submitting the First Information Report to the court. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed. The court, after taking cognizance, had registered a case and the accused who had appeared before the court pleaded not guilty to the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC', for brevity) and Sec. 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act', for brevity) and after recording the evidence of the prosecution, whereby it had examined PWs - 1 to 13 and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.17, had framed the following points for consideration:

(3.) The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that the court below has lost sight of the fact that the accident was not denied nor that a death had occasioned apart from several people being injured as a result of the accident. The court below however has proceeded to address the so called inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses and has held that since the panch witnesses had all turned hostile, the evidence of the eye witnesses, who were travelling in the autorickshaw, could not be accepted as they were inconsistent statements, in that, the court below has pointed out that PW.1 had stated that the vehicle was travelling at a high speed and as a result of the accused having applied brakes suddenly, the vehicle had turned turtle. Whereas the other witnesses, who have also stated that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, had not indicated that there was sudden braking of the vehicle. This, according to the court below, was an inconsistency which rendered the case of the prosecution doubtful, as it was not clear as to how the accident had occurred and had therefore negated the accusations.