B C RAMCHANDRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337 and 304-A, 1PC. He is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for different periods and to pay fine for the aforesaid offences. The judgment and order convicting the accused, having been affirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, the revision petitioner is before this Court challenging the same.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 3-5-1996 at about 5.00 p.in. on Bangalore- Mangalore Road near old bus stand of Chennarayapatna town, the accused drove the fire engine bearing registration No. KA-01 -G-8093 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against Bhyraveshwara hotel building and against a pedestrian by name Krishna who was standing in front of the said hotel resulting in the death of,said Krishna on the spot and damage to the hotel. Several-others were also allegedly injured. The accused was charged for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A. IPC. As the accused pleaded not guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses as PWs-1 to 14 and produced Exs.P.l to 16. The JMFC., Chennarayapatna. by the judgement dated 12-4-2002 convicted the accused for all the offences for which he was subjected to trial. The Magistrate applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur 'the facts speak for themselves' to infer culpable negligence against the driver of the fire engine. Although as many as 7 eye-witnesses in PWs-4 to 8, 11 and 12 were examined, except PW-6 all the other witnesses turned hostile. None of them supported the case of the prosecution and no allegations of reckless and negligent act on the part of the driver of the fire engine was alleged. PW-6-Suresh is the only eye-witness who is not treated hostile. But he has also admitted in the cross-examination that he could not say whether the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the fire engine. Thus, the evidence of the eye-witness placed before the Court did not support the prosecution in establishing the reckless and negligent act on the part of the driver. The trial Court refers to the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. as a piece of corroborative evidence to come to the conclusion that admittedly the offending vehicle was taken to the right side of the road which is the wrong side to the driver and that he did so in order to avoid a head-on collision with an upcoming lorry. Placing reliance on the mahazar drawn and having due regard to the fact that the circumstances as evidenced on the spot including the fact that the vehicle was taken to the wrong side and had dashed against a hotel and injured PW-5-Jayamma, the trial Court inferred that despite the absence of eye-witness account supporting the case of the prosecution, the circumstantial evidence was enough to hold the accused guilty as the principle of res ipsa loquitur applied to the case.

(3.) In appeal, the Sessions Judge concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court giving an additional reasoning stating that having regard to the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur it was for the accused to justify his action of taking the vehicle to the right side of the road. In paragraph 24 of the judgment, the appellate Court observes that the accused did not adduce any evidence to show that at the time of the accident, a KSRTC bus was standing on the left side of the road and that he was crossing the bus taking the fire engine to his right side and at that time, a lorry came from the opposite side in a high speed. Though the evidence of PWs-4, 7, 8 and 12 supported the version of the accused and probabilised the explanation given by him in his statement under Section 313, the Courts below disbelieved their version stating that they were the colleagues of the accused and therefore their version cannot be taken to corroborate the explanation given by the accused. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge has proceeded on the principle of res ipsa loquitur and further holding that the accused failed to lead any evidence to establish that the circumstances did warrant him to take the vehicle to the right side.