Nazeem Lathif vs State By N.R.Traffic Zone
2021 Latest Caselaw 1530 Kant

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

                               BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

        CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.974 OF 2011


BETWEEN:

Nazeem Lathif,
S/o S. Lathif,
37 years,
Resident of No.6/1,
Potre Road,
Richard Town,
Bangalore - 6.
                                                        ..PETITIONER

(By Sri. Vijay Kumar Prakash, Advocate)


AND:

State by
N.R. Traffic Zone,
Mysore.
                                                      ..RESPONDENT

(By Sri Thejesh P., HCGP)


       This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read
with S. 401(1) of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the Order dated
                                                        Crl.R.P.No.974/2011
                                    2


05.01.2011 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysore in Crl.A.
No.92/2010 and the Order dated 09.06.2010 passed by Judicial
Magistrate First Class-III, Mysore in C.C. No.3067/2007 and set
aside the conviction order to undergo six months' imprisonment and
petitioner be acquitted and set at liberty, in the interest of justice.


      This Criminal Revision Petition having been heard through
Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing and reserved on 25.01.2021,
coming on for pronouncement of Order, this day, the Court made
the following:
                                ORDER

The present petitioner was convicted in C.C. No.3067/2007 by

the Court of III JMFC, Mysore (for brevity, 'Trial Court') by its

Judgment dated 09.06.2010 for the offences punishable under

Sections 279, 304-A of Indian Penal Code(for short, 'IPC') and

Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (for short, 'M.V. Act') and was sentenced accordingly.

Challenging the same, petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.

No.92/2010 in the Court of III Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysore (for

brevity, 'Sessions Judge's Court') which also after hearing both side

arguments, by its Judgment dated 05.01.2011 dismissed the Crl.R.P.No.974/2011

appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the accused in the Trial Court has

preferred the present revision petition.

2. The Sessions Judge's Court and the Trial Court records

were called for and the same are placed before the Court.

Perused the materials placed on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High

Court Government Pleader for the respondent are physically present

in the Court. Heard their arguments.

4. The only point that arises for my consideration is,

"whether the Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence passed

by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Judge's Court is

incorrect and suffers with any illegality or perversity, warranting

interference at the hands of this Court?"

5. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the Trial

Court is that on 23.04.2007 at about 8.20 a.m., when the deceased

Raghunath Reddy was driving the motorcycle bearing registration

No. KA 09 EJ 6189 from Bannur Ring Road side to KRS ring road at Crl.R.P.No.974/2011

Mysuru-Bengaluru road near Mysuru, the accused driving his

Scorpio motorcar bearing registration No. KA 03 ME 3200 in high

speed and rash and negligent manner on the said Mysuru-

Bengaluru road and proceeding towards Mysuru, jumped the stop

signal given by the police and dashed to the motorcycle of

Raghunath Reddy as a result of which road traffic accident said

Raghunath Reddy fell down from his motorcycle, sustained grievous

multiple injuries to his head and other parts of the body to which he

succumbed on the spot.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments

submitted that he would not dispute the occurrence of accident on

the date, time and place mentioned in the charge-sheet so also the

vehicles involved in the alleged accident. He also submitted that he

would also not dispute the death of Mr. Raghunath Reddy due to

the injuries sustained by him in the accident on the spot. However,

he would dispute that it was due to rash and negligent driving of

the motorcar by the accused at the time of accident and identity of

the accused and his alleged involvement in the accident. He

submitted that evidence of alleged eye witnesses also does not Crl.R.P.No.974/2011

inspire confidence to believe the version of the prosecution. He

submitted that there is contradiction in the evidence of alleged eye

witnesses since one witness says that a stop signal by hand was

given whereas another witness says that there was an automated

traffic signal in the spot. He further submitted if at all the offending

vehicle was going in a speed of 70 to 80 Kms. per hour, it is not

possible to identify the driver in the said vehicle as such the alleged

identification of the accused itself is questionable and his alleged

participation in the crime is doubtful. He also submitted that the

concentration and attention of the traffic police would be on the

moving vehicles rather than the vehicle which is alleged to have

jumped the traffic signal, resulting in jumping the traffic signal. He

also submitted that the non mentioning of the presence of the

traffic police who is said to have been controlling the traffic in the

sketch prepared by the investigation Officer at Ex.P9 also adds to

the doubt in the case of the prosecution. Finally submitting that if

at all the Court comes to a conclusion that the guilt against the

accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt, still the sentence being

exorbitant the same is required to be reduced. The learned counsel Crl.R.P.No.974/2011

relied upon the unreported Judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in ULAS S/O RATANAKAR AMADALLI VS. STATE OF

KARNATAKA in Criminal Revision Petition No.100025/2014 dated

27.06.2014.

7. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent in his arguments submitted that all the prosecution

witnesses have led corroborative evidence which proves the guilt of

the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that

very act of the accused voluntarily surrendering before P.W.9 shows

that he was the driver driving the Scorpio motorcar at the time of

the accident.

8. P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 have claimed themselves as

the eye witnesses to the incident and have led their evidence

supporting the case of the prosecution.

P.W.1 - Nagaraju has claimed that on the date of the accident

i.e. on 23.04.2007 he was working as a Policeman on duty at the

spot of the accident. Therefore, he has seen the accident.

He has stated that the Scorpio car bearing registration

No. KA 03 ME 3200 came in a rash and negligent manner from Crl.R.P.No.974/2011

Bengaluru side and was going towards Mysuru side ignoring the

stop signal given by him. The said car jumped the traffic signal and

dashed to a motorcycle which was going from Bannur ring road side

to KRS road side. As an impact of the same, the rider of the

motorcycle was dragged for about 10 Meters on the road and after

sustaining injuries due to accident he succumbed to the same in the

spot. Based upon the address found in the pocket of the deceased

they came to know that the deceased was one Sri Raghunath

Reddy, an employee of Infosys Company. The witness has also

stated that he has given information about the accident to his

superiors who visited the spot. He has identified his complaint at

Ex.P1 and his signature therein. He has also identified the accused

in the Court as the one who was driving the said Scorpio car at the

time of accident.

P.W.4 - Vital Rao has stated that at the time of accident, he

was riding his motorcycle and had stopped the vehicle due to the

traffic signal given by the police on Bengaluru - Mysuru ring road

junction. It was at that time he noticed the Scorpio car bearing

registration No. KA 03 ME 3200 coming behind him and without Crl.R.P.No.974/2011

stopping though there was stop signal given by police, it proceeded

further and dashed to a motorcycle rider due to which the

motorcycle rider was thrown on the ground for about 10 to 12

Meters distance and sustaining grievous injuries he succumbed to

the same in the spot. He too has stated that the accident in

question has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

motorcar by its driver. He has given the registration number of the

motorcar. However, he has stated that, he has not stated in his

statement to the police that he has seen the driver of the motorcar.

P.W.5 - Shanmugavelu also has stated that at the time of

accident he too had parked his motorcycle due to a police signal to

stop the vehicle. It was at that time he saw a black colour Scorpio

car coming in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner

dashing to deceased Raghunath Reddy who was on his motorcycle

and causing his death in the spot. However, he has stated that

though he has seen the driver of the said car but he cannot identify

the said driver in the Court.

Thus the evidence of all these three witnesses clearly

mentions about the occurrence of the accident on 23.04.2007 at Crl.R.P.No.974/2011

about 8.20 a.m. involving a Scorpio car bearing registration No. KA

03 ME 3200 and a motorcycle bearing registration No. KA 09 EJ

6189. The evidence of these witnesses further go to prove that in

the said accident one Sri Raghunath Reddy sustained injuries and

succumbed to it in the spot. All these witnesses have stated that

the accident has taken place solely due to the rash and negligent

driving of the motorcar by its driver.

9. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 regarding

accident and the place of accident has been further corroborated by

scene of offence panchanama which is at Ex.P2. P.W.2 while

supporting the case of prosecution has stated that it was in his

presence the scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P2 was

drawn. The said scene of offence panchanama shows the place of

offence in the form of a road traffic accident and also the

description of the vehicles involved in the accident. This evidence of

P.W.2 corroborates the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 who are

the eye witnesses, about the involvement of the motorcar bearing

registration No. KA 03 ME 3200 and motorcycle bearing registration Crl.R.P.No.974/2011

No. KA 09 EJ 6189 in the accident and the death of rider of the

motorcycle in the spot.

10. P.W.3 - Sharin Lathif who is the owner of the vehicle

has turned hostile. However, the witness has stated that he was not

in the motorcar at the time of accident. The witness has stated

that he does not know who was driving the motorcar at the time of

accident. However, in his cross examination it has been elicited that

accused is his brother. Therefore, this witness even though does

not dispute the accident in question involving the motorcar and a

motorcycle but does not say anything about the driver of the

vehicle.

11. P.W.6 - Manjunath has identified the deceased as

Raghunath Reddy and stated that in the accident he succumbed to

the injuries on the spot.

12. P.W.7 - Venkateshaiah is the Police Sub-Inspector has

stated about he receiving the information about the accident and

proceeding to the spot and shifting the dead body of the deceased

Raghunath Reddy and also recording the complaint of the Crl.R.P.No.974/2011

complainant and submitting FIR to the Court after registering the

complaint in his Station. He has identified the complaint at Ex.P1

and the FIR at Ex.P8. He has also stated that on the same day he

drew a scene of offence panchanama in the presence of panchas as

per Ex.P2 and seized the motorcar involved in the accident from the

spot. He has also identified a sketch at Ex.P9 stating that he has

prepared the sketch at the spot.

13. P.W.8 - Paramesh is the Police Constable who

has stated that while working at Lashkar Police Station, as a Police

Constable on 23.04.2007, while he was on duty near Mohammed

Sait block within the limits of the Police Station, he received a

message from Control Room about securing motorcar bearing

registration No. KA 03 ME 3200 which was fleeing away from the

scene of the accident after causing a road traffic accident.

Since at about 8.35 a.m. in the morning, said car came to the

spot where he was controlling traffic, he stopped the said

car and informing the Control Room officials, produced

the driver along with the motorcar before his Station

House Officer. He has identified the accused in the Court Crl.R.P.No.974/2011

as the one who was driving the car when he seized it. Denial

suggestions made to him were not admitted as true by him.

14. P.W.9 - Jagadeesh the Police Inspector has stated about

he apprehending the accused on the same day of accident at about

3.00 p.m. when the accused voluntarily appeared before him. He

has also stated that he has seized the motorcar involved in the

accident by drawing a panchanama as per Ex.P10. He further

stated about he recording the statement of eye witnesses and

delivering the vehicle involved in the accident to C.W.15 by

following the procedure of law.

15. P.W.10 - Shanthamallappa has stated that he was the

Police Officer of the respondent - police. He after securing the

I.M.V. report has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the

alleged offences.

16. The above evidence of all the witnesses would clearly

go to show that the eye witnesses P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 have

categorically stated that it was the motorcar bearing registration

No. KA 03 ME 3200 which caused the accident. They have also Crl.R.P.No.974/2011

stated that Raghunath Reddy was run over by the said car which

jumped the traffic signal as a result of which, by sustaining grievous

injuries, the said rider of the motorcycle succumbed to the injuries

in the spot. Therefore, the evidence of all these people corroborated

by scene of offence panchanama at Ex.P2 and rough sketch at

Ex.P9 would demonstrate that accident in question has taken place

on the date, time and place as alleged in the charge-sheet. It also

cannot be ignored that the learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that he would admit the finding regarding the place of

accident, involvement of the vehicles and death of Raghunath

Reddy in the accident.

17. In the light of the above, it is also proved that the said

accident in question has occurred solely due to the rash and

negligent driving of the motorcar by its driver. Therefore, the next

question that follows is as to, was it the present petitioner who was

driving the said vehicle at the time of the accident? It is this point

which the learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously disputed.

18. P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 have clearly and specifically

stated that it was the accused who was driving the motorcar at the Crl.R.P.No.974/2011

time of accident. No doubt these witnesses have stated that the

said car was running at a speed of 70 to 80 Kms. per hour at the

time accident. Though the learned counsel submitted that if the

vehicle is running at such a high speed it is difficult to identify the

driver of the said vehicle but the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and

P.W.5 who were eye witnesses inspire confidence to believe that

they have seen the accused in the spot. It also cannot be ignored

of the fact that at the time of impact and immediately after the

impact, the offending vehicle would reduce its speed before fleeing

from scene once again. Therefore, these eye witnesses had every

opportunity to see the driver whom they have identified later on.

19. Regarding the identity of the accused as the driver of

the offending vehicle, the evidence of P.W.8 also comes into picture

who has stated that, he has, based on a wireless information

flashed by the Control Room stopped the said Scarpio vehicle near

the junction where he was controlling traffic on the said day and

took the accused and the car along with him to the Police Station

and produced the same before the Station House Officer. Nowhere

it was suggested to the witness that the driver of the said vehicle was Crl.R.P.No.974/2011

substituted or changed after the car causing an accident and before

it could be stopped by P.W.8. In the absence of any such defence or

any suggestion made to the witness who has identified the accused

as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident, there

is nothing to disbelieve the statement of the said witness and there

is nothing to believe that the present petitioner was not driving the

vehicle at the time of accident.

20. The above finding also gains more importance by the

evidence of P.W.9 the Investigating Officer who has specifically

stated that on the same day at about 3.00 p.m., the accused

voluntarily appeared before him whom he arrested and later

enlarged on Station bail. The said submission of voluntarily

surrendering of the accused before the I.O. has not been denied or

disputed in the cross examination of P.W.9. Therefore, the evidence

P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 is further corroborated by the evidence of

P.W.8 which in turn is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.9 and

clearly go to establish that it was the accused and accused alone

who was driving the motorcar at the time of accident. As such, the

non mentioning of the presence of the traffic police in the rough Crl.R.P.No.974/2011

sketch at Ex.P9 would not weaken the case of the prosecution.

Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the identity of the accused is not established beyond

reasonable doubt is not acceptable.

21. The evidence of the eye witnesses i.e., P.W.1, P.W.4,

P.W.5 clearly go to show that the accused was riding the motorcar

at the time of accident in a rash and negligent manner. His very act

of not stopping at the signal given by P.W.1 even though P.W.4 and

P.W.5 had stopped their vehicle also would further establish that

the accused was driving the motorcar in high speed and in a rash

and negligent manner. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel

for the petitioner on the said point that there was no rash and

negligent driving of the motorcar is not acceptable.

22. It is not in dispute that deceased Raghunath Reddy

sustained injuries in the said road traffic accident and succumbed to

it in the spot. The post-mortem report at Ex.P4 corroborates the

same. Apart from giving a detailed account of the injuries

sustained by the deceased including fracture of the skull bone, the Crl.R.P.No.974/2011

doctor has opined that all injuries were antemortem in nature and

according to him, death was due to coma as a result of head injury

sustained. The evidence of eye witnesses has established that the

said head injury sustained by the deceased was in the said road

traffic accident. Thus it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the

prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC.

23. It is proved that after the accident the said car did not

stop in the spot, but it was driven further till it was stopped by

P.W.9 in a traffic signal at the subsequent point. Therefore, the

accused who was proved to be driving the said car at the time of

accident, did not stop the car to get any medical assistance to the

injured or to inform the nearest Police Station about the accident.

This proves the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

under Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of M.V. Act.

24. The Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge's Court after

appreciating the materials placed before it in their proper

perspective since have rightly held that prosecution has proved Crl.R.P.No.974/2011

alleged guilt against the accused, I do not find any illegality,

impropriety or perversity warranting interference in it by this Court,

in so far as convicting the present petitioner / accused for the

alleged offences is concerned.

25. The Trial Court has sentenced the accused to pay a fine

of `1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and

in default of payment of fine amount to undergo S.I. for 30 days. It

has also sentenced the accused to undergo S.I. for six months and

to pay a fine of `1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section

304-A of IPC and in default of payment of fine amount to undergo

S.I. for 30 days. It has also sentenced the accused to pay a fine of

`500/- for the offence punishable under Section 134-A and B read

with Section 187 of M.V. Act and in default of payment of fine

amount to undergo S.I. for 15 days.

26. It is the sentencing policy that the sentence ordered for

a proven guilt must be proportionate to the gravity of the guilt

proved. The sentence ordered must be neither for the namesake

nor exorbitant.

Crl.R.P.No.974/2011

27. In the instant case, the sentence imposed for the

proven guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under

Section 279 of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section

187 of M.V. Act appears to be reasonable and proportionate to the

gravity of the guilt proved. However, when the sentence imposed

for the offence punishable under Section 304-A is concerned, in a

similar circumstance, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ULAS's

case(supra) had reduced the sentence of simple imprisonment of

six months to two months' simple imprisonment for the offence

punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.

28. Considering the present circumstances of the case and

also of the fact that the accused after the accident is said to have

voluntarily surrendered himself before P.W.9 as stated by P.W.9 in

his evidence, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment

for six months' simple imprisonment is excess compared to the

gravity of the proven guilt and circumstances of the case. As such,

the said sentence alone can be modified and reduced, confining it to

a simple imprisonment of four months. It is only for the said limited Crl.R.P.No.974/2011

purpose, interference in the impugned Judgments is warranted.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The revision petition is allowed in part.

The Order on sentence passed by the III JMFC, Mysore in C.C.

No.3067/2007 dated 09.06.2010 ordering the petitioner to undergo

simple imprisonment for six months is modified by reducing it to

four months. As such, the petitioner is sentenced to undergo

simple imprisonment for four months for the offence punishable

under Section 304-A of IPC. However, the fine amount and the

default sentence ordered by the Trial Court for the said offence

punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and the Judgment of

conviction and order on sentence passed for the offences

punishable under Sections 279 of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b)

read with Section 187 of M.V. Act remain unaltered.

Registry to transmit copies of this Order along with Trial Court

and Sessions Judge's Court records to the concerned Courts,

without delay.

Sd/-

JUDGE sac*