Karnataka HC confirms jail term to driver who denied accident despite shifting victim to hospital

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has confirmed six months’ simple imprisonment imposed on a driver in an accident case observing that the accused driver, who had shifted the injured in his own tempo to the hospital, denied the very accident.

The court noted that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the trial court, especially when the accused driver has denied the very accident itself.

The accident occurred at about 5 pm on ring road near Ganapathi Temple at Rajivnagar in Mysuru on May 6, 2009.

The deceased Siddappa alias Gurusiddappa was riding a bicycle when a goods tempo driven by Nagaraju B knocked him down from behind. A severely injured Gurusiddappa succumbed to his injuries in a hospital.

The prosecution’s key eyewitness Veerabhadra, who was riding a motorcycle behind the deceased Gurusiddappa’s bicycle, had testified that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by goods tempo driver Nagaraju.

According to the eyewitness, the deceased was carrying a big lunchbox and that it was Nagaraju who took injured Siddappa to the hospital in the goods tempo.

On February 14, 2017, the trial court held Nagaraju guilty for causing death by negligent act under IPC section 304A and imposed six months’ simple imprisonment and held guilty under IPC section 279 for rash driving and under Indian Motor Vehicles Act. Nagaraju moved the high court after the order of conviction was upheld by the Sessions court in Mysuru in August 2017.

In the high court, Nagaraju reiterated that except the eyewitness Veerabhadra’s testimony, there is no material to establish that he was responsible for the accident. It was further submitted that since more than 17 years have passed since the accident, he should not be sent to jail.

Justice V Srishananda noted that the petitioner-driver went to the extent of denying the very accident but further failed to place his version about the incident on record either by examining himself or any witness about the incident.

“In a matter of this nature, the accused is bound to place his version on record after the prosecution establishes its case. But the accused has deliberately failed to make use of such an opportunity in placing his version on record. More so, when he himself has shifted the injured in his own vehicle to the hospital,” Justice Srishananda said.

The court further said, “Firstly, the petitioner has denied the very accident itself even after shifting the injured in his own vehicle. Further, PW4 (Veerabhadra) being the true and honest witness has been cross-examined to portray that he is deposing falsely. Secondly, since the petitioner has not placed any version about the incident and because of his rashness a valuable human life has been lost. Thus, following the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs Saurabh Bakshi, the order of imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.”