Shivarudraswamy vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3484 Kant

                              1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                            BEFORE

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

          CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.283/2013

BETWEEN:

SHIVARUDRASWAMY,
S/O RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O BHEEMA NAGAR,
KOLLEGAL TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR-571440.                           ...PETITIONER

              (BY SMT. NALINA K., ADVOCATE FOR
             SRI S.K. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KOLLEGAL RURAL POLICE,
KOLLEGAL,
CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 440.                         ...RESPONDENT

                 (BY SRI K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTIONS 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 17.01.2012
PASSED BY THE PRL. C.J. & J.M.F.C., KOLLEGALA IN
C.C.NO.518/2009 AND JUDGMENT DATED 22.02.2013 PASSED BY
THE DIST. & S.J., CHAMARAJANAGAR IN CRL.A.NO.5/2012 BY
ALLOWING THIS R.P. AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE
ACCUSED/PETITIONER OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM
IN C.C.NO.518/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. C.J. & J.M.F.C.,
KOLLEGALA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
279, 337, 338 AND 304(A) OF IPC.
                                    2



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

                              ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent-State.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

that on 11.09.2009 at about 4.00 p.m., at Duddinavadi village in

Kollegal Taluk, when the deceased was waiting for bus at the bus

stop along with the complainant, the accused being the driver of

the ambassador car drove the same in a rash and negligent

manner and hit against the deceased Basavanna. As a result of

this accident, the said Basavanna sustained grievous injuries to

his head and other parts of his body and died at the spot. The

car also hit C.W.2 and C.W.3 and caused simple and grievous

injuries. Based on the complaint of C.W.1, case has been

registered, matter has been investigated and charge-sheet is

filed. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused,

relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.9 and the documents

at Exs.P.1 to 10. The petitioner herein has not examined

himself before the Trial Court. The Trial Court after appreciating

both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted

the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 297, 337,

338 and 304A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of six months and fine.

3. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court,

an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.5/2012 and the District and

Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, dismissed the appeal coming

to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any

error in appreciation of the evidence and not find any illegality

and perversity in the approach of the Trial Court while analyzing

and scrutinizing the evidence on record. Being aggrieved by the

dismissal of the appeal, the present revision petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would

vehemently contend that the Trial Court failed to take note of

the fact that C.W.1 was not present at the spot and apart from

that, P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are claiming to be eye-witnesses,

their evidence is not properly considered. P.W.3 suffered only

simple injuries i.e., Ex.P.5, but she categorically admits that the

roads from all four directions merge at the circle and there is

heavy traffic in the said circle. P.W.2 admits that soon after the

accident, he lost consciousness and he does not know what

happened at the spot and hence it requires interference of this

Court.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that

both the Courts have taken note of particularly the evidence of

P.W.1 to P.W.3, who are the eye-witnesses and their evidence is

consistent and no material contradictions are found in the

evidence of those three eye-witnesses. Hence, there are no

grounds to exercise the powers under Section 401 of Cr.P.C.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material

available on record, the points that arise for the consideration of

this Court are:

(i) Whether the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have committed an error in convicting and confirming the conviction and sentence and whether the orders suffer from any illegality, perversity or correctness?

(ii) What order?

Point No.(i):

7. Having heard the respective learned counsel, the

learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend

that the prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.1 to

P.W.3, who are the eye-witnesses to the accident and contend

that P.W.1 was not at the spot at the time of the accident. But

P.W. 1 categorically says that he has witnessed the accident and

also identifies the driver, who is the petitioner herein and also

identified him before the Court. In the cross-examination,

except eliciting the answer that in the circle four roads joins and

there are other vehicles, lorry, bus and scooter comes in all the

four sides, nothing is elicited. It is suggested that when the

deceased Basavanna came to attend the festival, he was in a

drunken state and the same was denied. In the cross-

examination of P.W.1, it is elicited that a car came from Hanuru

side and also on the left side of the road car was parked. It is

suggested that the petitioner has not driven the vehicle in a rash

and negligent manner and the same was denied.

8. P.W.2 also reiterates that he witnessed the accident

and he categorically says that the petitioner drove the vehicle in

a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased,

and also against him and C.W.3 and they also sustained injuries.

He identifies the accused saying that he was driving the car. In

the cross-examination, no doubt, it is elicited that he lost the

conscious after the accident and there afterwards he cannot tell

what happened. He categorically says that car came in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed against Basavanna as well as

he himself and P.W.3 have sustained injuries.

9. The other witness is P.W.3 and she says that all were

waiting for the bus and a car came in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed against her and as a result, she has

sustained injuries and when she regained conscious, she was at

Kollegal hospital. In the cross-examination of this witness, it is

elicited that four roads join the circle and the witness did not

answer to the suggestion that in the circle vehicles do not move

in high speed. However, she admits that she did not see the

driver of the vehicle. P.W.4 to P.W.9 are the mahazar witnesses

and formal witnesses.

10. Having considered the evidence available on record,

though the learned counsel for the petitioner contend that these

witnesses have not identified the petitioner, but P.W.1 and P.W.2

have identified the accused before the Trial Court and also

categorically deposed that the vehicle was driven in a rash and

negligent manner and they have seen the petitioner before the

accident. No doubt, in the cross-examination, it is suggested

that after the accident when they have lost conscious, they were

not aware of what happened subsequent to the accident, but

P.W.1 and P.W.2 have identified the petitioner. The sketch

which is marked as Ex.P.9, discloses the place of the accident.

The evidence of the witnesses is that they were waiting for the

bus and the accident was taken place when they were waiting

and a car came in a rash and negligent manner and the car went

towards M.M.Hills bus stop and not on the road. When the

witnesses have identified the petitioner and their evidence is

consistent, I do not find any illegality committed by both the

Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in appreciation of the

evidence. The material not manifestly discloses any error

committed by the Appellate Court and the finding of the Trial

Court is not incorrect and both the Courts comes to a definite

conclusion that accident occurred due to negligence on the part

of the petitioner and apart from that, the prosecution mainly

relied upon the wound certificate of P.W.2 and P.W.3, which

discloses that they have sustained injuries. It is important to

note that IMV report Ex.P.7, clearly discloses damages to front

left side bumper, front left side wheel mudguard, front left side

head light and indicator, radiator and fan and bonnet damaged

and dented. The vehicle dashed against the persons and apart

from that the vehicle also sustained damage on account of the

negligence driving of the vehicle and material on record

corroborates each other with regard to rash and negligent

driving on the part of the petitioner herein, which has resulted in

death of one Basavanna at the spot. Hence, I do not find any

grounds to invoke Section 401 of Cr.P.C. to exercise the

revisional jurisdiction.

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

following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD