REPORTABLE

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 445  OF 2003

SHIVANNA ..  APPELLANT(S)

vs.

STATE BY HUNSUR TOWN POLICE ..  RESPONDENT(S)

O  R D E R

When we took up this matter at the initial stage we  

were surprised as to how and why leave had been granted by  

this Court despite three concurrent judgments of the Courts  

below  recording  a  conviction  against  the  appellant  for  

offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 and 338  

of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned counsel for the appellant has however

pointed out that this had happened as  there was absolutely  

no evidence against the appellant and the findings recorded  

by the courts below particularly the Trial Court and the  

First Appellate Court (the High Court having dismissed the  

criminal revision in limini) were completely outside the  

evidence  and  based  on  inferences  which  did  not  flow  

therefrom.

The facts are as under:

The appellant was a truck driver and was plying  his  

vehicle fully loaded with stones on the State highway bye-

passing  Hunsur town on the 15th September, 1992.  As per  

-2-

the prosecution the vehicle allegedly overturned and four  

persons sitting in the cabin and three on the stones in the  

rear part of the truck were thrown out, leading to the  

death of one sitting in the rear and injuries to seven  

others.  The appellant was accordingly brought to trial for  

the aforesaid offences.

The prosecution in support of its case relied on the  

evidence of ten witnesses and several documents were also  

exhibited towards the evidence.  The courts below placed  

reliance on the statements of PWs. 5, 6 and 7, all injured,  

who  were  travelling  in  the  vehicle  and  had,  therefore,  

witnessed  the accident.  These PWs  admitted that the  

accident  had  happened  as  the  driver  of  a  truck  going  

directly  ahead  of  the  offending  vehicle  had  suddenly  

applied his brakes on which the appellant had to brake his  

vehicle as well which caused it to overturn on account of

its heavy load. PW.7 in fact went even a little further and  

deposed that if the appellant had not applied  the brakes  

his truck too would also dashed against  the truck going  

ahead.

We have gone through the evidence of these three  

witnesses  very  carefully  with  the  help  of  the  learned  

counsel  for   the  parties.  We  find  that   a  cumulative  

reading of their evidence  shows that the appellant cannot  

be fastened with any allegation of wrong doing.  PW.5  

-3-

stated that the offending vehicle was going at a fast speed  

but in the cross examination he clarified that it was going

at a normal speed and that he had not seen the lorry going  

ahead but the brakes had been applied by the appellant.  

PW.6 on the other hand stated that the appellant had been  

blowing   the  horn  for  some  time  and  that  there  was  a  

vehicle  going  ahead  of  the  offending  vehicle  and  the  

appellant had no option but to apply the brakes failing  

which he would have dashed against the vehicle going ahead.  

PW.7, as already indicated above, however gave a statement  

which completely dislodged the prosecution story.  We are  

therefore  of  the  opinion  that  in  the  light  of  the  

statements given by the three primary witnesses there is no  

evidence which inculpates the appellant.   

Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, the learned counsel for the  

State of Karnataka, has however referred to Ext. P.10  (the  

site plan) to contend that as the accident had happened on  

a State  highway on the Mysore bye-pass and the fact that a

vehicle was going ahead of the offending vehicle would have  

been  visible  to  the  appellant  and  as  the  accident  had  

happened as he was attempting to overtake that vehicle, a  

duty to take extra care lay on him but he had ignored this  

basic principle.  We are unable to accept this plea.  The  

site  plan  only  indicates  the  place  where  the  accident  

happened and nothing more can be read into it.  In the face  

-4-

of the eye witness evidence produced by the prosecution  

itself no inferences can be drawn  as in such a situation

the ocular evidence of those traveling in the vehicle has  

to be given primary importance. We are of the opinion that  

this is a case of no evidence, calling for interference at  

any stage.

We, however, clarify that as the matter before us is  

a criminal appeal, the findings recorded herein would not  

have any effect on the civil proceedings, if any, pending  

with respect to the accident.

We  accordingly  allow  this  appeal,  set  aside  the  

conviction of the appellant and direct his acquittal.  As  

the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.

                     .................J.          (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

     ....................J.

                                  (CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD) New Delhi,

    August 18, 2010.