Sri.Sangappa S/O Chandappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 5376 Kant

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
               KALABURAGI BENCH

   DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200013/2015

BETWEEN:

SRI.SANGAPPA
S/O CHANDAPPA PATANGAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
OCC : DRIVER B.N0.1067
R/AT : NANDAWADGI
BAGALKOT DIST.
                                        ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDL.STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BENCH BUILDING
KALABURGI -584101
THROUGH I.O.SINDHANUR
POLICE STATION.
                                       ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.GURURAJ V HASILKAR, HCGP)
     THIS CRL.R.P. FILED U/SEC.397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C,
BY THE REVISION PETITIONER PRAYING O SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 13.01.2015 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DIST & SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAICHUR, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 02/2014 AND ETC.
                                  2




     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader

for the State.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that on

26.03.2011 at about 12.50 p.m., this revision petitioner

was driving the bus bearing No.KA36-F-839 in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle

driven by the deceased Devid, due to which, he himself

and his one of the daughter died on the spot and wife and

another daughter have sustained grievous injuries. The

police have registered the case and after the investigation,

charge sheet has been filed. The prosecution in order to

prove the case, examined PW1 to PW13 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P14. The Trial Court after considering both the

oral and documentary evidence convicted the accused for

the charges leveled against him and hence, an appeal is

filed in Crl.A.No.2/2014 and the Appellate Court confirmed

the order of conviction and sentence is modified that

sentence shall run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the

finding of both the Courts, the present revision petition is

filed.

3. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently

contend that both the Courts have failed to consider Ex.P4

i.e., spot mahazar and the accident was occurred due to

negligent riding of the motorcycle who took turn without

observing the movement of the bus which is coming from

the opposite direction and the sketch also clearly discloses

that the rider of the motorcycle who was proceeding on the

left side suddenly came towards right side and there was a

distance between the provision way made to take right

turn is 56 feet from the place of accident and the bus

which was coming from the opposite direction was moving

in the right direction and when the rider of the motorcycle

suddenly took the vehicle towards the right side, in order

to take right turn, there is a provision. The counsel also

submit that PW3 who is the wife of the deceased has not

identified the driver of the bus and PW11-IO also in the

cross examination categorically admits that in terms of

Ex.P5a, motorcycle rider fell down at the spot due to skid

and the same has not been considered by the trial court

and hence, it requires interference of this court.

4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader for the State would submit that both the courts

have taken note of the evidence. PW3 who is the eye-

witness also sustained injury in the accident and in her

evidence, she has not identified the petitioner herein. The

fact that this petitioner is the driver of the bus is not in

dispute and the Trial Court also taken note of sketch Ex.P4

and rightly comes to the conclusion that accident was

occurred on account of negligence on the part of this

petitioner and it does not require any interference by this

court.

5. Having heard the respective counsel appearing

for the parties and also on perusal of the evidence

available on record, the point that would arise for the

consideration of this court is

Whether both the Courts have committed an

error in convicting the petitioner without

considering Ex.P4 and whether this Court can

exercise the revisional powers under Section

397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. with

regard to the legality and correctness of the

offence?

6. Having heard the respective counsel for the

parties and also the evidence available on record

particularly, Ex.P4-sketch, which is prepared in crime

detailed form is clear that both the vehicles are coming

from the opposite direction and width of the road is 24 feet

and the distance between where provision made to take

right turn from the place of the accidence is 56 feet. It is

also important to note that the motorcyclist who was the

rider of the motorcycle was suddenly took right turn, as a

result, the accident was taken place. There is a force in

the contention of the petitioner's counsel that suddenly

motorcyclist took the right turn and the sketch also clearly

discloses that he took the vehicle towards right side

suddenly and there was a gap of 56 feet from the place

where the provision was made to take right turn and bus

was coming from the opposite direction and photo at

Ex.P5a also clearly discloses that bus was almost its

direction and IO also admitted in the cross-examination

that motorcyclist suddenly fell down due to skid. However

the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that IO is not an

eye witness. The Court has to consider over all the

evidence available on record. The photograph at Ex.P5

clearly depicts the place of accident and apart from that

Ex.P4 sketch prepared by the IO also corroborates that

motorcyclist took the vehicle towards right side to take

right turn where provision was made at the distance of 56

feet from the place of accident. These two documentary

evidences have not been properly considered by both the

Courts in appreciating both the oral and documentary

evidence. No doubt, PW3 who is the eye-witness to the

incident says that both of them gave signal to take right

turn. I have already been pointed out that Ex.P4 sketch is

very clear that motorcyclist suddenly took right turn when

he was proceeding towards opposite direction and rider of

the motorcyclist ought to have watched the vehicle which

was coming from the opposite side while taking the right

turn and this aspect has not been considered by both the

courts. Hence, this Court comes to the conclusion that

both the Courts have committed an error in giving finding

with regard to the correctness and the judgment of the

Trial Court is not based on both the oral and documentary

evidence and committed an error in appreciating

particularly, the documentary evidence available on

record. Hence, it requires interference of this court.

7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER

The revision petition is allowed.

The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence

passed by the Trial Court and also the order of affirmation

made by the Appellate Court are set aside.

The accused is acquitted for the offences invoked

against him.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SAN