BASAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
LAWS(SC)-2014-2-73
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
February 27,2014
BASAPPA
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RAMESH BABULAL DOSHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]BHIM SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. KARNAIL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KALLU ALIAS MASIH VS. STATE OF M P [REFERRED TO]
T SUBRAMANIAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
K PRAKASHAN VS. P K SURENDERAN [REFERRED TO]
GAMINI BALA KOTESWARA RAO VS. STATE OF A P [REFERRED TO]
GANPAT VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
STATE OF ORISSA VS. SUDHAKAR BEHERA [LAWS(ORI)-2024-2-143] [REFERRED TO]STATE OF ORISSA VS. SUDHIR BADHEI AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2015-2-58] [REFERRED TO]
CAPT (RETD ) O P SHARMA & ANR VS. KAMLA SHARMA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2008-3-387] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. VEERUMAL DULARAM NAINWANI AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-3-408] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. SHIVANAND BISHIROTTI [LAWS(BOM)-2015-6-156] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. NILAPA ADEYA REDDY [LAWS(ORI)-2014-11-93] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. SK. HIMAT [LAWS(ORI)-2014-9-64] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. SHASHI KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(P&H)-2019-8-208] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDEV CHAND VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-8-75] [REFERRED]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. MUKESH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-11-105] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. MATTA APPAYA PATRO [LAWS(ORI)-2024-3-124] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. JHADU LUHA [LAWS(ORI)-2015-1-53] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. KASHMIR SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-189] [REFERRED]
DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS VS. JOGINDER PAL JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2014-2-375] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. SAMSON D'SOUZA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2019-7-401] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. KAWDU [LAWS(BOM)-2014-7-244] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. PATEL AMRUTLAL KESHAVLAL & 2 [LAWS(GJH)-2015-2-230] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-3-369] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-171] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA CHOUHAN VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2016-7-177] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. ARUN GURUNATH DENGI [LAWS(GJH)-2018-3-118] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. JADAV MAHEMOODBHAI NASIBBHAI & OTHER [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-409] [REFERRED]
STATE OF GOA VS. MR. MERVIN THOMAS MENE ZES & ANR. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-75] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATESH SADANAND PAI VS. KANCHAN A. SHENVI KAKODKAR AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. PRAKASH [LAWS(BOM)-2014-7-94] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH VS. C P AGRE, S/O CHHEDILAL AGRE [LAWS(CHH)-2019-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MEHBOOBKHAN RANAJI MALEK [LAWS(GJH)-2015-2-259] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. SUNADHAR MADKANI [LAWS(ORI)-2014-10-42] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. MURALIDHAR SAHU [LAWS(ORI)-2014-12-68] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. SHASHI KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(P&H)-2019-8-78] [REFERRED TO]
JODHAN VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(SC)-2015-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH VS. STATE OF UTARAKHAND [LAWS(SC)-2016-7-174] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KUMAR ALIAS NITU VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2013-7-209] [REFERRED TO]
PIDATHALA SATYAM BABU VS. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR A.P., HIGH COURT, HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2017-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. PRANAYSINH ALIAS PRAVINSINH DASHRATHSINH CHAVDA [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-133] [REFERRED TO]
STATE REP BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VS. MULLAIVENTHAN [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-508] [REFERRED TO]
HARERAM SATPATHY VS. PREMLAL SUNA [LAWS(ORI)-2015-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. GHANASHYAM SAHU [LAWS(ORI)-2014-10-40] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. MUKUNDA MAJHI [LAWS(ORI)-2014-11-97] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VS. MUJEEB RAHMAN [LAWS(KER)-2017-7-174] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. KALA ALIAS SIKHAR NAIK [LAWS(ORI)-2014-11-88] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(SC)-2014-12-49] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHETTRI VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2016-6-7] [REFERRED]
STATE OF U.P. VS. KALIM ULLAH [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-69] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. JEETENDRA POPATBHAI AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. T KOLI RAMESHBHAI DEVABHAI & OTHER [LAWS(GJH)-2015-2-229] [REFERRED TO]
DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS VS. JOGINDER PAL JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-198] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. ANUP SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-682] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. PRAVEEN POOJARY, [LAWS(KAR)-2014-4-303] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. RATAN KISSAN [LAWS(ORI)-2014-12-72] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. MAHENDRA KUMAR OJHA [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. BUDHIA [LAWS(ORI)-2014-11-62] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. SADASIBA MAJHI [LAWS(ORI)-2014-11-85] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. SANKARA PATRA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2014-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. SUDHANSU SEKHAR JENA ALIAS BULU [LAWS(ORI)-2014-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Appellant is the accused in C.C. No. 707 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Hubli, Karnataka. He was charge- sheeted under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Sections 187 and 196 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act'). The accident occurred on 11.02.2004 at 02.30 P.M. when the appellant was allegedly driving a tractor with a trailer. The vehicle hit against a scooty and resultantly a two year old child travelling in the scooty fell down. The tractor ran over the child and she succumbed to the injury. PWs 1 to 11 were examined and seven documents were marked on the prosecution side. Two documents were marked on the side of the accused. The learned Magistrate, after elaborately discussing the evidence, came to the following conclusion at paragraph-22 of the Judgment dated 25.05.2005:
"22. Perused the evidence of PW-1 to 11 and the case file after perusal of the same, it creates doubt whether this accused was the driver at the relevant point of time or not, so also to say that the accident was happened due to the rash and negligent act of this accused, as there is no any cogent, impeachable and clinching evidence with respect to the ingredients of alleged offences. Further in view of these types of discrepancies of the prosecution witnesses case is not beyond doubt. Had the prosecution able to explain clearly the above said doubtful circumstances, then certainly this court could have believed the evidence of the material witnesses but now the doubtful evidence and circumstances are not cleared. Hence I am not accepting the stand taken by the learned APP. Therefore in view of the so many discrepancies in the versions deposed before the court and one given before the police, it creates doubt whether this accused was involved in the commission of offences or not. Therefore, I feel accused is entitled for acquittal."
(3.)We are informed that the accused was on bail during the trial but remained in custody for five months and five days during investigation.
(2.)Appellant is the accused in C.C. No. 707 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Hubli, Karnataka. He was charge- sheeted under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Sections 187 and 196 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act'). The accident occurred on 11.02.2004 at 02.30 P.M. when the appellant was allegedly driving a tractor with a trailer. The vehicle hit against a scooty and resultantly a two year old child travelling in the scooty fell down. The tractor ran over the child and she succumbed to the injury. PWs 1 to 11 were examined and seven documents were marked on the prosecution side. Two documents were marked on the side of the accused. The learned Magistrate, after elaborately discussing the evidence, came to the following conclusion at paragraph-22 of the Judgment dated 25.05.2005:
"22. Perused the evidence of PW-1 to 11 and the case file after perusal of the same, it creates doubt whether this accused was the driver at the relevant point of time or not, so also to say that the accident was happened due to the rash and negligent act of this accused, as there is no any cogent, impeachable and clinching evidence with respect to the ingredients of alleged offences. Further in view of these types of discrepancies of the prosecution witnesses case is not beyond doubt. Had the prosecution able to explain clearly the above said doubtful circumstances, then certainly this court could have believed the evidence of the material witnesses but now the doubtful evidence and circumstances are not cleared. Hence I am not accepting the stand taken by the learned APP. Therefore in view of the so many discrepancies in the versions deposed before the court and one given before the police, it creates doubt whether this accused was involved in the commission of offences or not. Therefore, I feel accused is entitled for acquittal."
(3.)We are informed that the accused was on bail during the trial but remained in custody for five months and five days during investigation.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.