Analysis
Main points
10. As per the deposition of PW2, he was riding with his father to their uncle’s residence in Bhadravati. He was the pillion rider at the time of collision. It is impossible to determine the likelihood that PW2 witnessed the collision because his car struck them from behind.
Accident/Incident happened by crashing into the back side of the motorcycle
11. PW3 had stated in his deposition that he was waiting for the deceased and his son to arrive. Around 1:00 PM, he noticed that the deceased person’s motorcycle was approaching from the Shivamoga side. At that moment, the Qualis vehicle was approaching at a high speed, acting rashly and carelessly, and it crashed into the back side of the vehicle of the deceased person. The Qualis vehicle continued and came to a stop a short distance away. Following the aforementioned incident, the deceased and PW2 collapsed onto the road, where they observed blood seeping from the deceased’s ears.
Persons on the motorcycle followed strict rules
12. According to the deposition of PW4, Dinesh Kailaje had turned on his indicator light to turn left when he was 20 meters away from Kalinganahalli Cross. The accident took place at that point of time when his son who was pillion rider on the motorcycle was extending his left hand. The Qualis vehicle coming behind dragged his son along with the bike. The front side portion near head light on the left side of the Qualis vehicle dashed against the rear side of the bike. Both the riders fell down on the road at the place of accident.
Post-mortem revealed death due to cerebral injuries
13. According to the post-mortem performed on the body of the deceased person, the cause of death was blunt force trauma related cranio-cerebral injuries. The deceased had suffered as many as 19 physical wounds. Based on the post-mortem report, the courts below have rightly observed that death of the deceased is due to above mentioned injuries suffered.
Trial court rightly appreciated that the road was wide and a prudent person cannot make a sudden turn
14. The prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused has further relied upon the spot sketch which is Ex. P 13 as per the oral testimony of PW10. The High Court has rightly appreciated the fact that the width of the road being 24 feet, there was enough room available for the Petitioner who was riding the Qualis to pass through the wide road without getting entangled with the vehicle of the deceased. The trial court also has rightly appreciated the fact that as the road was so wide it would not have been prudent for a person to make a sudden turn which is the bone of contention of the Petitioner to suggest that there was contributory negligence.
Vehicle caused the accident dragged about 15 feet after the accident show the high speed
15. Another significant fact is that the Qualis vehicle was at such a high speed that the vehicle of the deceased was dragged for about 15 feet and was not just an incidental collusion. The Reports annexed coupled with the testimonies of the witnesses does indicate that the conduct of the accused was indeed a rash and negligent one.
Appellant did not provide reasonable explanation in section 313 Cr.P.C questioning
16. The record also indicates that during the stage of recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused had failed to give a reasonable explanation when the incriminating material was brought to his notice.
17. In our considered opinion, the Petitioner has miserably failed to raise a reasonable doubt to probabalise the version narrated by him. The High Court and the Courts below are right in concluding that the act of the Petitioner was a rash and negligent one and have thereby rightly convicted the accused Petitioner.
Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the compassion ground
18. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, while arguing, had submitted that the petitioner is 48 years old, doing a small business and has old, aged ailing parents. He is the sole bread earning member of his family and has three sons and a wife who are all dependent on him. He has no criminal antecedent. He also submitted that Section 304A of Indian Penal Code also provides a punishment as fine and considering the special circumstances of the present case, prayed for the sentence of six months to be converted into fine. In our considered opinion, the present case is not fit for extending sympathy and taking a lenient view especially considering that the said rash and negligent act of the accused has caused death of one person as well as injuries to one other.
Appeal dismissed
19. In view of the above, we observe that this appeal does not warrant any interference and is hereby dismissed.
Party
James Vs. The State of Karnataka Criminal Appeal No. ____________ of 2024 [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1296/2023] – 2024 INSC 1038 – 08.07.2022.
