Shivkumar S/O Zharnappa Bacche ... vs The State
2022 Latest Caselaw 1523 Kant

                             1



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200048/2021


BETWEEN:

Shivkumar S/o Zharnappa Bacche Wale,
Age : 28 years, Occ : Private Work,
R/o Shivlurgalli, Humanabad,
Dist. Bidar.

                                            ... Petitioner

(By Sri Liyaqat Fareed Ustad, Advocates)


AND:

The State through
Janwada Police Station,
Rep. by the Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench, Kalaburagi.
                                           ... Respondent

(By Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, HCGP)

       This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C praying to
allow the revision petition by setting aside the judgment
and order dated 17.08.2020 passed by the Principal
District and Sessions Judge at Bidar in Crl.A.No.91/2017
                                2



convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 338, 304A, 427 of IPC and Section 187 of
the M.V.Act and consequently set aside the judgment and
order dated 25.11.2017 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC-I Judge at Bidar in C.C.No.92/2017.

      This revision petition coming on for Final Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:

                         ORDER

Heard Sri Liyaqat Fareed Ustad learned counsel for

the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader

for respondent/State.

2. The present revision petition is filed by the

accused who has been convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 279, 427, 337, 338 and 304A of

IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in

C.C.No.92/2017 which was modified in Crl.A.No.91/2017

insofar as sentencing the accused/revision petitioner for

the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC

and offences punishable under Sections 304A and 427 of

IPC and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act is maintained.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under :-

Accused being the driver of the goods tempo bearing

Reg.No.KA-25-RTE-2241 came in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed against the motorcycle bearing

Reg.No.KA-38-E-5521 and thereby the rider of the

motorcycle and the pillion rider sustained injuries. The

pillion rider Shivaputra died on account of the road traffic

accident and sought for action against accused. The police

after thorough investigation filed the charge-sheet against

the accused for the aforesaid offences.

4. Thereafter presence of the accused was

secured and plea was recorded since accused pleaded not

guilty trial was held.

5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution,

in all 17 witnesses have been examined and 20 documents

were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. On conclusion

of the prosecution evidence, accused statement as

contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded,

wherein accused denied all the incriminatory materials.

However, accused did not place on record his version

either by examining himself or placing any written

submission on record as is contemplated under

Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the trial

Magistrate heard the parties in detail and passed an order

of conviction convicting the accused for the aforesaid

offences and sentenced as under :

Default Offence Punishment Fine sentence 279 of IPC One month `500/- One month simple simple imprisonment imprisonment

427 of IPC One month `500/- One month simple simple imprisonment imprisonment

337 of IPC One month `500/- One month simple simple imprisonment imprisonment

338 of IPC One month `500/- One month simple simple imprisonment imprisonment

304A of IPC One year `1,500/- One month simple simple imprisonment imprisonment

187 of M.V.Act One month `100/- One day simple simple imprisonment imprisonment

6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused

preferred an appeal before the District Court in

Crl.A.No.91/2017.

7. The learned Judge in the first Appellate Court

after securing the records heard the parties in detail in the

light of the appeal grounds.

8. On such re-appreciation of the material on

record, the learned trial Judge in the first Appellate Court

maintained the conviction of the accused for the offences

punishable under Section 279, 338, 304A and 427 of IPC

and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However

separate sentence ordered for the offence under

Sections 279 and 338 of IPC was set-aside in view of

Section 71 of IPC and maintained the sentence and fine in

respect of the offence punishable under Sections 304A and

427 of IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

9. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is

before this court in this revision.

10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner

Sri Liyaqat Fareed Ustad vehemently contended that both

the courts have not properly appreciated the material

evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused

resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting

the matter and allow the revision.

11. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader opposes the revision grounds by contending that

the injured eyewitness who is the pillion rider of the

motorcycle and the other witnesses have supported the

case of the prosecution and the same has been rightly

appreciated by the learned Judge in the first Appellate

Court and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

12. In the light of the arguments put-forth on

behalf of the parties, this court meticulously considered

the materials on record and the revision grounds.

13. On such reconsideration, this court is of the

considered opinion that no case is made out by the

revision petitioner to interfere with the order passed by the

trial Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Judge in the

first Appellate court. The case of the prosecution stands

proved by the oral testimony of the injured pillion rider. It

is well settled principles of law that testimony of the

injured eyewitness stands on a higher pedestal.

14. Further, the accused has failed to place on

record his version about the incident. Therefore, in the

light of the principles of law enunciated in the case of Ravi

Kapur v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 9 SCC

284 and in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh

Bakshi, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182, the accused has

deliberately not used the opportunity to explain the

incriminatory materials and place his version on record,

the consequences in law has been rightly followed by both

the courts in convicting the accused for the aforesaid

offences. Since the first Appellate Court has already

exercised its appellate power in modifying the sentence

and fine, absolutely no grounds are made out by the

revision petitioner to interfere with the order passed by

both the courts and accordingly the following :

ORDER

Admission declined.

Revision petition is dismissed.

Accused is granted time till 28.02.0222 to surrender

before the trial court for serving the remaining part of the

sentence.

Office is directed to return the trial court records

along with a copy of this order forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sn