Deepak Shrimant Gangane vs State By Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 6934 Kant

                                 1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 21 S T DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
                             BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

      CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 2010/2013

   BETWEEN:

   Deepak Shrimant Gangane
   Aged about 26 years
   Occ. Driver, R/o. Yalavi, Tq. Jatt
   Dist. Sangli.                        ...PETITIONER

   (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH,
   ADVOCATE)

   AND:

   State of Karnataka
   By P.I. Sadalaga Police Station
   And also represented by
   State Public Prosecutor
   Circuit Bench, Dharwad.        ... RESPONDENT

   (BY SRI. RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP)

       THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
   UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF Cr.P.C.
   WITH A PRAYER TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
   AND CONVICTION DATED 05.11.2012 PASSED BY
   THE FTC-IV, BELGAUM IN CRL.A. NO. 155/2012
   AND ETC.

       THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON
   FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
   FOLLOWING:
                            2




                       ORDER

This revision petition is filed by the

accused seeking for setting aside the judgment

and conviction dated 05.11.2012 passed by the

Presiding Officer, FTC - IV, Belgaum in Crl.A.

No. 155/2012 and the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 18.07.2012 passed

by I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikodi in

C.C. No. 507/2010.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent -

State.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is

as under:

On 03.03.2010 the complainant's son -

Premanjaya and his friend Avinash had gone to

Jangali Maharaj Mutt to attend a function. The

complainant had also been to the said function.

While the complainant was returning after

attending the program to his village and when

he came near the land of one Rama Nana

Chougale, at that time people had gathered

and one Rajendra Devappa Nipgave and Sanjau

Rajaram Desai were crying and asking them

what had happened. The complainant

proceeded further and then saw Premanjaya

and his friend while returning on their bicycle

to their village one tractor bearing No. MH-09-

U-5983 and trailor No. MH-09AL-305 and MH-

09-304 caused the accident due to the rash

and negligent act of the driver. Avinash and

Premanjaya fell down from the bicycle and the

tractor ran over the head of Premanjaya and he

died on the spot and Avinash sustained

injuries. The accident had taken place at 10.00

pm and the tractor was loaded with sugarcane.

Then the complainant noted the number of the

tractor. Due to the rash and negligent driving

of the tractor by the driver, the complainant's

son died on the spot and Avinash sustained

injuries. The complainant lodged a complaint

as per Ex.P.1 and the case came to be

registered in Sadalaga Police station in Cr. No.

47/2010. Charge sheet has been filed and the

case came to be registered against the

petitioner for the offences punishable under

Sections 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC and Section

134 read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles

Act. The trial Court after recording the

evidence of eight witnesses and on hearing the

arguments has passed the judgment of

conviction in C.C. No. 507/2010 convicting the

revision petitioner for the offences punishable

under Section 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC and

Sections 134 and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act.

The revision petitioner has been sentenced to

pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and simple

imprisonment for six months for the offence

punishable under Section 304(A) IPC, further

sentenced to fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence

punishable under Section 279 IPC, further

sentenced to fine of Rs.500/- for the offence

punishable under Section 338 IPC and fine of

Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under

Section 134 and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. The

revision petitioner has challenged the said

judgment in Crl.A. No. 155/2012. After hearing

the parties and re-appreciating the evidence on

record the learned Presiding Officer, FTC-IV,

Belgaum has passed the judgment dated

05.11.2012 dismissing the appeal and

confirming the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence passed in C.C. No. 507/2010.

The revision petitioner has challenged the said

judgments in the present revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the revision

petitioner would contend that the judgments

passed by the trial Court and the appellate

Court are illegal, perverse and not in

accordance with law. It is his further

submission that the prosecution has not proved

the guilt of the revision petitioner for the

offences alleged against him and it is his

further contention that the trial Court and the

appellate Court have not appreciated the

evidence on record in proper perspective.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court

Government Pleader has contended that the

trial Court and the appellate Court have

appreciated the evidence in proper perspective

and placing reliance on the evidence of two eye

witnesses and evidence of the injured, the trial

Court has rightly convicted the revision

petitioner for the offences alleged against him.

There are no grounds to allow the petition and

hence, he prays to dismiss the revision

petition.

6. The alleged incident is not in dispute

and also the death of Premanjaya. P.W.1 is the

father of the deceased and he is the

complainant; P.W.2 is one of the panchas to

the spot mahazar - Ex.P.2; P.W.3 and P.W.4

are the eye witnesses to the incident; P.W.5 is

the PSI; P.W.6 is the rider of the vehicle and

he is injured in the incident; P.W.7 is another

pancha to the spot mahazar - Ex.P.2 who has

not supported the case of the prosecution;

P.W.8 is one K.V. Sridhar, one of the

Investigating Officers.

7. The accident is between two vehicles,

i.e., tractor trailer and the bicycle. The road in

which the accident has occurred is a highway.

The accused has not disputed that he was the

driver of the said tractor at the time of

accident. Ex.P.4 is the MV report wherein it is

stated that the accident had not occurred due

to any mechanical defect of the vehicle. Ex.P.3

is the PM report and the Doctor has opined that

cause of death was due to shock as a result of

head injury and hemorrhage. It was the

defence of the revision petitioner - accused

that the accident had occurred due to skid of

the bicycle and falling of the deceased on the

road. The trail Court and the appellate Court,

considering the evidence of P.W.1, eye

witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 and the evidence of

the injured - P.W.6, have negatived the said

defence of the revision petitioner -accused. On

perusal of the entire record, this Court is of

the opinion that the said finding of the trial

Court and the appellate is not perverse or

illegal. The learned counsel for the revision

petitioner would contend that the accident has

taken place on the left side of the road and

therefore, the revision petitioner - accused -

driver of the tractor is not negligent and the

accident had not taken place due to the rash

and negligent driving of the said vehicle. It is

the case of the prosecution that the tractor

dashed to the bicycle on which the deceased

was traveling from the back side and therefore,

the accident is on the left side of the road.

Hence, the said contention of the learned

counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be

accepted. P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 gave

evidence that the accused was driving the

tractor in a rash and negligent manner and he

failed to control the vehicle and therefore, the

tractor dashed against the bicycle. The learned

counsel for the revision petitioner has failed to

point out any illegality or perversity in the

judgments passed by the trail Court and the

appellate Court. The trial Court and the

appellate Court, on appreciating the evidence

on record, have rightly come to the conclusion

that the revision petitioner - accused has

committed the offence alleged against him.

There are no grounds to interfere with the

judgment of the trial Court and the appellate

Court. Hence, the revision petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LRS.