K N NAGARAJU Vs. A S HEMANTHA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is accused in Crime No.111/2007. It is alleged by the complainant, one Hemantha Kumar, that when his father Siddalingaiah was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing no.KA-11/H.727 towards Ankannanadoddi village from Keragodu, on reaching Kundegowda Sugar Cane Crusher on Manday-Koppa road, a three wheeler goods vehicle bearing no.KA-11-3887, which was being driven by the petitioner herein, in a rash and negligent manner, is said to have dashed into the motor cycle from behind, resulting in the complainant's father falling to the ground and succumbing to the injuries. The accident is said to have occurred on 4.6.2003 at about 7.30 p.m. Thereafter, the mother of the complainant had admitted him to a hospital at about 9p.m. on the same night, but Siddalingaiah had succumbed to the injuries It is on that basis that a complaint was lodged with the Police for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 134(A) and (B) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'MV Act', for brevity) against the petitioner. The Police after investigation, however, had submitted a 'B' Report, against which, the complainant had filed a protest memo and the court below had rejected the 'B' Report and directed registration of the case and issuance of process against the present petitioner. The same having been challenged in a revision petition, the revision petition has been dismissed, on the reasoning that there was sufficient material to proceed with the trial of the accused and therefore, the court below was not bound by the opinion expressed by the Police in the 'B' Report. It is that which is under challenge in the present petition.

(3.) The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, however, would seek to justify the proceedings that are pending before the court below and would endeavour to contend that the scope of inquiry in a case before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the scope of inquiry before the court below, are totally in different contexts and hence, cannot be equated to hold that the case against the petitioner is incapable of being proved beyond all reasonable doubt. However, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor does not point out the evidence that would be of a totally different nature, in seeking to bring home the charges that may be framed against the accused - petitioner. The prosecution would necessarily have to rest its case on the basis of the documents which have been relied upon before the Claims Tribunal insofar as establishing the occurrence of the accident is concerned. Therefore, on the principle that when the case as to the accident having occurred could not be established in a civil case, it would be even more difficult for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt in a criminal case, the prosecution is to be held as being futile.