SHEKHAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C. No.559/2010 on the file of Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Bilagi. The learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity) and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ - with a default clause of simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days. Petitioner was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 338 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The said judgment of conviction and sentence was confirmed by District & Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, in Crl. A. No.40/2012 on 31.12.2013. Both the Courts have passed the concurrent finding with regard to the factum of negligence on the part of driver.

(2.) THE brief factual matrix of case that emanate from records are that, on 05.10.2010 at about 8.00 a.m. petitioner being a driver of K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Reg. No.KA 29 F 836 has driven the bus from Bagalkot to Bilagi and when the bus reached near Anagawadi cross, it is alleged that he has driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life. It is alleged that the complainant by name Kamalakshi Bhimappa Ingunnavar was about to board the bus and as the petitioner has drove the bus in rash and negligent manner, the complainant victim fell down on ground and sustained grievous injuries as the rear wheel of bus has ran over the legs of victim. The alleged negligent act of driver was seriously disputed during the course of evidence before the trial Court. The learned Magistrate after securing the presence of accused has held the trial. The prosecution in order to prove the case against the petitioner has examined 9 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked six documents as Exs.P -1 to P -6. During the course of cross -examination of P.Ws.3 and 4 two documents were marked as Exs.D -2 to 4. After examining the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity) the Court has also provided an opportunity to the petitioner to explain his defence. After hearing the arguments the trial Court after due appreciation of the evidence has found accused guilty and sentenced him for the above said offences. This order has been challenged in Crl.A. No.40/2012. The Sessions Court has almost considered the evidence on record and found no materials to deviate from the findings given by trial Court and as such the Appellate Court has also confirmed the judgment of trial Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for petitioner has raised two important aspects before this Court. One amongst that is the conductor of said bus on the date of alleged incident after closing the door of bus has given a clear signal to the driver to move the bus. The petitioner driver unknowingly what was happening near the door has driven the bus on the signal given by conductor. It is argued that the driver was not at all having any knowledge about P.W.1 attempting to board the bus. Therefore, driver was not at all negligent. This particular defence of accused has been fully supported by the conductor during the course of trial, which has not been properly appreciated by trial Court.