Raj @ John Raja S/O Thoma vs The State Of Karnataka R/By
2021 Latest Caselaw 6920 Kant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                KALABURAGI BENCH

   DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                        BEFORE

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

              CRL. RP. No.200047/2015

BETWEEN

RAJ @ JOHN RAJA S/O THOMAS
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER
R/O HATTI, TQ. LINGASUGUR
DIST: RAICHUR.
                                          ...PETITIONER

      (By Sri SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADV.,)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ADDL.SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
(THROUGH HATTI P.S)
                                         ...RESPONDENT

          (By Sri GURURAJ V. HASILKAR HCGP)

      THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.05.2015 PASSED BY
THE    PRINCIPAL     SESSIONS     JUDGE,    RAICHUR    IN
CRL.A.No.39/2013 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET-ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
DATED 30.09.2013 PASSED BY THE JMFC-I COURT,
LINGASUGUR IN C.C.NO.219/2002 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/Ss.279, 337, 338, & 304-A OF IPC,
CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.
                               2


     THIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision

petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent/State.

2. The present petition is filed under Section 397

read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the

judgment dated 25.05.2015 passed by the Principal

Sessions Judge, Raichur in Criminal Appeal No.39/2013

and also the order passed by the JMFC-I, Lingasugur in

C.C.No.219/2002 dated 30.09.2013 for the offences

punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC,

consequently acquit the petitioner.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that this

petitioner on 04.11.2011 at about 11:00 a.m. being the

driver of Mini Lorry bearing registration No.KA-27-1065

drove the same by carrying the passengers in a rash and

negligent manner and lost his control over the vehicle, as a

result of which the Lorry was turtled on the left side of the

road as a result of which CW.1 and CW.10 to CW.54 have

sustained the injuries and the injured two persons have

lost their life. Based on the complaint, the police have

registered a case and investigated the matter for the

offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and

304A of IPC. The accused/revision petitioner did not admit

the charges. Hence, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to

44 and also relied upon the documents - Exs.P1 to P70 and

MOs.1 to 4.

4. The trial Judge after considering both the oral

and documentary evidence available on record, convicted

the accused for the offences punishable under Sections

279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and substantial sentence of

six months was imposed in respect of an offence

punishable under Section 304A of IPC. Hence, the

accused/petitioner has preferred an appeal in Criminal

Appeal No.39/ 2013. The learned Sessions Judge on re-

appreciation of the evidence, partly allowed the appeal and

set aside the sentence passed for an offence punishable

under Section 279 of IPC and in respect of the remaining

offences, the sentences are confirmed. Hence, the present

revision petition is filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision

petitioner in his arguments, he vehemently contended that

both the Courts have failed to take note of the fact that

the witnesses PW-20, PW-21 and PW-31 to PW-35 and

PW-36 to PW-41 have not supported the case of the

prosecution, who are the material witnesses and the

evidence on record clearly goes to show that the accident

occurred due to breakage of steering. P.W.38 is the owner

of the said lorry. He deposed that he does not know who

was driving the Mini Lorry and identification had not been

done. The trial Judge ought not to have convicted and the

appellate Court also ought not to have confirmed the

conviction and sentence. Hence, it requires an interference

of this Court.

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the

prosecution mainly relied upon the injured witnesses and

their evidence. Apart from that, two persons have lost

their life and the case of the prosecution is also that the

petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent

manner, as a result, he lost the control and the vehicle

was turtled and the injured have sustained the injuries.

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and on perusal

of the material available on record, the points that would

arise for consideration of this Court in this revision petition

are:

(1) Whether this Court can exercise the revisional power regarding the legality and correctness of the finding of the respective Courts?

(2) What order?

Point No.(1):

8. Having heard the respective counsel and also

the grounds urged in the revision petition and though

some of the witnesses have not supported the case of the

prosecution and apart from that, the wound certificates are

also marked as per Exs.P23 to P67, totally 45 injured

persons have sustained the injuries, the Trial Court also

taken note of Exs.P68 to P70-post-mortem reports and

considering the evidence of the injured witnesses rightly

comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved

the case. The Sessions Judge also on re-appreciation of

the evidence considered the defense taken by the accused

and also taken note of the manner in which the vehicle

was turtled and an accident was occurred and things itself

speak how the revision petitioner has drove the vehicle. In

view of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, he

lost the control and the vehicle was turtled. The appellate

Court also taken note of Section 279 of IPC and held that

there is no need to pass separate sentence for the offence

punishable under Section 279 of IPC as the offence under

Section 279 of IPC merges with Section 304-A of IPC. On

re-appreciation also, given finding, but in respect of other

offences is concerned, taken note of the other injured

witnesses evidence. Hence, I do not find any error

committed by the appellate Court on re-appreciation of the

evidence. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the revision

petition to exercise revisional power as there is no any

illegality committed by both the Courts in giving its finding

and finding of both the Courts are in order.

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

the following:

ORDER

The Revision Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE cp*/NB*