State vs B. Vasu

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned State Public Prosecutor.

The State is in appeal questioning the acquittal of the respondent. The facts are as follows:

-It transpires that on 09.06.2010 at about 4.30 PM the respondent who was the driver of a tipper bearing Regn. No. KA-35 1654 was driving the same, which was loaded with mud on Basappanakatte Road, allegedly at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and had suddenly, applied the brakes, since there were road humps and as a result of which a labourer, namely, Gongali Nagaraj who was sitting inside the cabin is said to have been thrown out while the door had flown open and he is said to fallen under the wheels of the lorry which had run over him. He is said to have succumbed to the injuries though he was rushed to a hospital. It was also found that the vehicle was being driven by the respondent without a driving licence and thereby it was alleged that the accused had committed an offence punishable under Sections 279, 304A of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) read with Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Cognizance having been taken and on appearance of the petitioner he was charge sheeted and the accused having pleaded not guilty, the prosecution had examined 8 witnesses apart from marking several exhibits. The Court after having heard both the sides, framed the following points for its consideration:

Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 09.06.2010 at about 4.30 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Peenya Tr. Police Station, the accused being the driver of tipper lorry bearing Reg. No. KA. 35-1654 drove the same on Basappanakatte Road in a high speed in rash and negligent manner from east to west and suddenly applied the brake near the humps, resulting in which inmate of the lorry i.e., labour by name Gongali Nagaraj fell down at that time back wheel of the said lorry run over on his stomach and due to impact he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed. At the time of accident drove the said vehicle without having driving licence and thereby punishable u/s. 279, 304(A) of IPC and Sec. 3(1) r/w 181 of MV Act?

What Order?

The trial Court held the same in the negative. The Court below has found that there was a contradiction between the evidence of witnesses viz., PW3 who was said to be an eye witness with the evidence of PW8-the investigating officer, who had made inconsistent statements. PW3 had testified that the deceased was travelling in the cabin of the lorry and that when the respondent had suddenly braked, the deceased was thrown out of the vehicle. Whereas the investigating officer had testified that the deceased was riding on the load of mud and had been thrown under the wheels of the vehicle when the vehicle had suddenly braked. It is this significant contradiction which has prompted the Court below to hold that the case against accused has not been established beyond all reasonable doubt. It was necessary for the prosecution to establish that the door of the vehicle was not properly secured or that it was not functioning properly or it was capable of being thrown open on the vehicle having been suddenly stopped or slowed down. The motor vehicle inspector who has furnished his report, has not stated anything about the manner in which the accident could have occurred or the state of repair of the door of the vehicle and this is a serious contradiction which would make a difference as to how the deceased was run-over. If he was in the cargo area of the lorry and was possibly negligent in the manner in which he was seated there, it is quite possible that he was thrown out of the lorry without warning and therefore, the accused being held guilty of rash and negligent driving in causing the death of the deceased., cannot be said to have been established beyond all reasonable doubt.

Insofar as the driver of the lorry not possessing a valid driving licence would however, attract punishment, which the Court below has overlooked. Therefore, the appeal is allowed in part. Since it is not in dispute that the accused was indeed driving the lorry and did not possess a valid driving licence, punishment in terms of Section 181 is that respondent is liable to pay fine of Rs. 500/-.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The respondent shall pay a fine of Rs. 500/- within a period of two weeks, in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks.