Sessions Court Lacked Jurisdiction; High Court Upholds Trial Court's Acquittal of Bus Driver in 2006 Accident
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has set aside the conviction of Sri K. Keshava, accused of causing a fatal road accident in 2006, and restored the trial court's acquittal. The High Court, presided over by Justice G. Basavaraja, found that the II Additional District & Sessions Judge of Dakshina Kannada erred in entertaining the State's appeal against the acquittal, as it lacked jurisdiction under the amended Section 378(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The case revolved around a tragic incident on June 16, 2006, when a bus allegedly driven by Keshava collided with a car, resulting in the death of Robert Pardo and injuries to other occupants. The trial court had acquitted Keshava, citing insufficient evidence and a lack of direct witness testimony connecting him to the alleged rash and negligent driving.
Despite this, the State appealed to the Sessions Court, which reversed the acquittal and sentenced Keshava to imprisonment and fines under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court, however, emphasized that appeals in cases involving bailable offences do not lie with the Sessions Court but directly with the High Court.
Justice Basavaraja noted the absence of concrete evidence against Keshava, particularly the failure of witnesses to identify him as the bus driver. The judgment further highlighted that the prosecution's case was based on interested witnesses and lacked corroborative evidence of negligence.
Citing various precedents, the High Court reiterated that an appellate court should not overturn a trial court's acquittal unless the judgment is patently perverse or evidence has been misread. The court found no such errors in the trial court's judgment.
The decision underscores the importance of jurisdictional boundaries and evidentiary standards in criminal proceedings, ensuring that convictions are not based on speculative or insufficient evidence.
Bottom Line:
An order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of bailable offences does not lie before the Court of Sessions as per the amended Section 378(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Such an appeal lies to the High Court. A judgment pronounced without jurisdiction is a nullity.
Statutory provision(s): Section 378(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
Sri K. Keshava v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2838302
