MADHUSOODAN Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor. The present petitioner is said to be accused for offences punishable under sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity).

(2.) It is sought to be contended that the prosecution has relied mainly on the evidence of PWs.1, 4, 5 and 9 and all of which suffer from serious legal infirmities and contradictions and those witnesses do not corroborate each other. Hence, it could not be said that the rash and negligent act alleged against the petitioner was proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, it is pointed out that PWs. 4 and 5 were employees of Vijaya Bank and the deceased was also an employee of Vijaya Bank and it is evident that they were seeking to tender evidence in support of their colleague, only to support the prosecution, out of sympathy for the deceased and his widow and their evidence could not have been relied upon. The learned Counsel also draws attention to the infirmities apparent from the spot mahazar and the sketch, which is contrary to the evidence of the investigating officer PW.9. It is also pointed out that the spot of the incident was such that there was hardly any room for vehicles to maneuver and the deceased had suddenly crossed the road without warning and it is at that point that the accident had occurred for it is claimed by the prosecution that the deceased was walking along with his wife and if that was so, the accident was of such a nature that both he and his wife ought to have been injured. Therefore, it was evident that the deceased had suddenly crossed the road and it was in such a circumstance that the accused who was taken unawares and not in a position to control the vehicle that the accident had occurred and hence it could not be said that the prosecution was in a position to hold that the petitioner was guilty of a rash and negligent act.

(3.) While the learned State Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose the petition and would submit that the scope of re-appreciation of evidence is not warranted unless there are such glaring errors committed by the courts below, such as having taken into consideration material, which is not available on record or having ignored material on record in arriving at certain findings. In the absence of any such infirmity, the scope of interference in exercise of revisional power by this court is limited and hence, he would submit that there is no warrant for entertaining the petition and the same ought to be dismissed.