LAWS(KAR)-2018-2-315

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. YASIN BASHA

Decided On February 22, 2018
STATE OF KARNATAKA Appellant
V/S
Yasin Basha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the State being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.11.2009 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hubli, in Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2009, wherein the order of the trial Court dated 29.04.2009 passed in C.C. No.230 of 2007 was set aside and the accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304- A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 03.10.2006 the respondent-accused being the driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA-25-F 2051 belonging to Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation was proceeding from Dharwad to Hubli. At about 9.25 p.m. when he came near BVB college, Vidyanagar, Hubli, he drove the bus rashly and negligently and as a result, he dashed against a scooter bearing registration No.KA-14-H-4585 and on account of the injuries suffered, the rider of the scooter succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, the bus went and hit to a on coming Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.KA.25 M-2537. A case was registered and after investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the accused-respondent. The trial Court after recording the evidence of PWs.1 to 12 and marking Exs.P-1 to P-11 convicted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said order, the accused preferred an appeal before the District and Session Judge, Hubli, in Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2009. The Appellate Court by appreciating the evidence has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused and allowed the appeal by acquitting the accused. Challenging the same, the State is before this Court.

(3.) The main grounds urged by the learned High Court Government Pleader are that though there is corroborative evidence of PWs.1, 4 to 6, 8 and 11, the first appellate Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and material on record and has wrongly acquitted the accused by allowing the appeal. PWs.1, 4 to 6, 8 and 11 have categorically stated that the driver of the KSRTC bus came rashly and negligently and he first hit to the road divider and then to the rider of the scooter, who died at the spot, and thereafter to a Tata Sumo, it clearly shows that accused was rash and negligent at the time of accident. He further contended that the first appellate Court only by relying upon Ex.P-6 and the evidence of PW-9-Motor Vehicle Inspector, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He further contended that though there are some variations in the statement of the witnesses the same do not affect the case of the prosecution adversely as there is corroborative evidence with regard to the manner in which the accident has occurred. The first Appellate Court ignoring all these aspects has acquitted the accused which is unsustainable in law. He further contended that the case of the prosecution has to be seen in its entirety. If the driver of the vehicle has not taken the precaution which a ordinary prudent man ought do have taken, then under such circumstances, the act of the driver is considered to be rash and negligent and he is liable to be convicted. He further contended that the trial Court without proper appreciation of the evidence has come to a wrong conclusion and the same is liable to be set aside by confirming the judgment and order of conviction of the trial Court. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the appeal.