State of Karnataka vs Laxman

Dr. Jawad Rahim, J.—The state is in appeal questioning the acquittal of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A, 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 187, 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The prosecution case is that, the respondent was driving the vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-13/3155, which is a 407 tempo. The accused drew the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner around 1.00 p.m. on 10.04.2009 and hit against the road side cashew nut tree by his sheer negligence. After the vehicle collided with the tree, he lost balance and the vehicle dashed against two young girls Sangeetha and Ankitha, who were plucking the cashew nuts. Consequent to impact, both the girls suffered fatal injuries and died. Report in this regard was lodged vide Ex. P1 before the jurisdictional police station and during investigation, vehicle was examined by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. The Motor Vehicle Inspector has submitted a report vide Ex. P16, recording that there was no damage to the vehicle.

In the trial, the prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses and relied on 18 documents and they produced no material objects. The vehicle has not been produced before the trial Court. The accused took up a defence that, the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident. In the trial that ensued prosecution, the witness, namely PW1 - Tulasu Gouda reiterated the statement made by him in the complaint vide Ex. P1, that the accused drew the vehicle rashly, hit against the cashew nut tree and then against the girls. Other witnesses have also spoken inline with the testimony of PW1. Ocular testimony of more than four witnesses has supported prosecution case and there is full corroboration in their endeavor to bring out incriminating aspects indicting respondent for offence u/s 304A IPC.

But the learned trial Judge has noticed from the evidence, such incriminating aspects were not supported by the motor vehicle report. He found that the motor vehicle was examined soon after the accident though not seized immediately and in that examination no damage is found on the vehicle. Thus the learned Judge opined, the contention taken by the accused, that the vehicle was not involved in the accident, was believable defence against ocular testimony of the witnesses and acquitted the accused. Questioning the acquittal, the State has filed this appeal.

Sri. V. M. Banakar, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor reiterates the grounds urged before the trial Court and submits that, acquittal is not just and proper. He submits that, there is a possibility the accused might have repaired the damage before the vehicle was seized. If it is so, as urged by Sri. Banakar, then the Investigating Officer should have investigated that aspect also, to ascertain as to whether the vehicle had suffered damage and as to whether it was repaired by the accused to destroy the evidence relating to the accident. No action has been taken by the Investigating Officer in this regard and nothing is made part of the Charge sheet.

In this fact situation, the primary proof in the prosecution is lacking and the P6 - Motor Vehicle Report, being totally against the allegation that the vehicle has first hit against the cashew tree and then to the minor girls, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge was right in recording acquittal and I find no reason to interfere with such a finding.

The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the acquittal of the respondent.