Hussaini vs The State of Karnataka

Jawad Rahim, J.—This revision is by accused against judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2007 dated 23.1.2010, on the file of the Fast Track Court-II, Bellary, confirming his conviction as recorded by the Trial Court in C.C. No. 735/2005 for offence punishable u/s 304-A of IPC. Heard learned appellant''s counsel, so also learned Addl. S.P.P. for the State. Perused records in supplementation thereto.

It reveals the petitioner was the driver of Truck bearing No. KA 35/A 8154 and on 7.6.2006, he had gone to the stone crushing plot where stone crushing was going on and he was directed to load the stone from the stone crusher of Rajagopala Reddy situated in Ingiligi village. Accordingly, he took his lorry to the spot, but while negotiating at the land, the lorry hit against a minor girl-Channamma who was working in the mines. She fell and crushed under the wheel of the lorry.

The accused pleaded not guilty of the charge and in the trial that ensued, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and produced 8 documents including Ex. P.2-Panchanama, Ex. P3-Seizure Panchanama, Ex. P4-Inquest Panchanama. Ex. P5 Postmortem Report, Ex. P6 IMV report, Ex. P7 FIR, Ex. P.6 sketch.

The prosecution has examined the complainant-Hairsh as P.W. 1, who described the incident. He claims that he was supervisor of the site where crushing was going on and according to him, on 7.6.2994 at 12 noon, the accused drove the lorry in question to unload the stones and was directed to drive the lorry towards right side of the crusher and on such instruction the accused took the lorry suddenly in reverse direction in a rash and negligent manner and in that process, the girl was crushed.

The witness has been cross-examined and it is elicited that there was lot of dust at the time when the accident has occurred and he has also not seen the unfortunate girl, who was sitting on the jelly stone. P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 are the eyewitnesses who had deposed about the incident and supported the version of the supervisor. According to them, the accused was driving the vehicle at high speed and thus caused the accident. But, P.W. 5 has admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of the accident stone crusher was operating and workers were unable to see anything. Similarly they did not hear the sound of the girl. He admitted that it was difficult to see because of the poor visibility. P.W. 2 to P.W. 4 are the seizure mahazar witnesses. They have also supported the prosecution case. The sketch produced by the prosecution shows that unfortunate girl fell somewhere under the stone crusher itself where the lorry was moving. The fact that there was poor visibility and also that the accused could not hear the sound or indications he may not have noticed the girl, but that will not absolve him. All that could be said is that the degree of negligence is not of higher degree. In a case where the charge is u/s 304-A IPC to visit the offender punishment of imprisonment negligence of higher degree should be established. If it is culpable negligence, then undoubtedly he shall be punished with fine including imprisonment. If it is possible to take a view that accident was result of negligence, but was only actionable negligence, the sentence could be modulated by imposing fine.

Being of this view, while confirming the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the accused for offence under 304-A IPC and taking into consideration all attending circumstances, imposing of punishment of imprisonment does not appear to be just. Accordingly, the order sentencing him to imprisonment is modified. The order imposing imprisonment is set aside. Instead, he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 6,000/- which shall be paid within two months. In default, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months. Revision petition is disposed of in terms of this order.