N Raghavendra vs State By Channagiri Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 5825 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

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

       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.678/2013

BETWEEN:

N.RAGHAVENDRA
S/O B.NAGARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
DRIVER OF BUS
NO.KA 17/A 6525
R/O. 76/1, 14TH CROSS,
NITUVALLI ROAD,
DAVANAGERE-577 006.                        ...PETITIONER

             (BY SRI M.V.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE BY
CHANNAGIRI POLICE
CHANNAGIRI-577 213.                       ...RESPONDENT

              (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 06.02.2012
PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHANNAGIRI
IN C.C.NO.940/2009 CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER DATED
21.06.2013 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SESSION JUDGE,
DAVANAGERE, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.19/2012 CONVICTING
THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 279 AND 304A OF IPC AND TO ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
                                2



SECTIONS 279 AND 304A OF IPC IN C.C.NO.940/2009 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHANNAGIRI.

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

This criminal revision petition is filed to set aside the

judgment and order of sentence dated 06.02.2012 passed by the

Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Channagiri in C.C.No.940/2009

confirmed by the order dated 21.06.2013 passed by the II Addl.

District and Sessions judge, Davanagere, in Criminal Appeal

No.19/2012 convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable

under sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and acquit the petitioner

for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 304-A of IPC

in C.C.No.940/2009 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and

J.M.F.C., Channagiri.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution

before the Trial Court is that on 12.07.2009 at about 4.45 p.m.

on Channagiri, Bhadravathi road near Adi Kukkuvadeshwari

Temple, when the deceased Ranganatha was proceeding along

with his cattle, this petitioner being the driver of the bus, drove

the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against

said Ranganatha. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and

thereafter, succumbed to the injuries. Based on the complaint,

the police have registered the case and investigated the matter

and filed the charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 279

and 304-A of IPC.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove the case,

examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1

to P13(a) and the petitioner has not led any defence evidence.

5. The Trial Court, after considering both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the petitioner

for the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and

imposed substantive sentence of six months and imposed fine of

Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, ordered to undergo

simple imprisonment for one month.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and

sentence, appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.19/2012 and the Appellate

Court also, on re-appreciation of the material available on

record, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision

petition is filed.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel for

petitioner before this Court is that accident has taken place in

2009 and this petitioner was aged about 27 years as on the date

of the accident and almost 13 years have elapsed. He would

also submit that, both the Courts have committed an error in

relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 and P.W.8 has

turned hostile. P.W.8 also not admitted the accident, except

admitting that this petitioner was the driver of the bus which

belongs to him. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the State would submit that P.W.1 is the

complainant and also an eye witness and P.Ws.5 and 8 have

supported the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination

of these witnesses, nothing is elicited from the mouth of these

witnesses to discredit the case of the prosecution. She would

also submit that, though P.W.9, owner of the bus has not

supported the case of the prosecution regarding the accident is

concerned, however, he categorically deposed that this petitioner

was the driver of the bus which belongs to him. Hence, both the

Courts have considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses

and also the documentary evidence, including the documents

Exs.P1-complaint and P11-sketch and also considered the

material on record and it does not require any interference of

this Court.

9. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material on record, the points that would arise for

consideration of this Court are:

(1) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in convicting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC?

(2) Whether the Appellate Court has committed an error in confirming the judgment of the Trial Court and whether this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction?

(3) What order?

Point Nos.(1) and (2)

10. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material on record, the prosecution, mainly relied

upon the evidence of P.W.1 and he deposed that deceased was

taking cattle and at that time, bus came in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed against him. As a result, he sustained

injuries. In the cross-examination of this witness, except

suggesting that he did not witness the accident, nothing is

elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 regarding his rash and

negligence and even not suggested to him that he did not drove

the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

11. The other witnesses are P.Ws.4 and 5. The evidence

of these witnesses is also that this petitioner drove the vehicle in

a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased.

The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that these

two witnesses deposed that the deceased was not holding his

cattle in his hand and these witnesses have given different

version. But, in the cross-examination of P.Ws.4 and 5, except

suggesting that both of them have not witnessed the accident,

nothing is elicited. But, P.W.5 admits that along with the

deceased, no other person was there. P.W.9 is the other

witness, who is the owner of the vehicle i.e., the bus and he

categorically deposed that this petitioner was the driver of the

bus. No doubt, he was partly cross-examined treating him as

hostile, in the cross-examination, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has not even denied that he was not the driver.

12. Apart from oral evidence, documentary evidence i.e.,

Ex.P5-IMV report, Ex.P1-complaint, Ex.P2-spot mahazar and also

sketch which is marked as Ex.P11 are also taken into

consideration by both the Courts and looking into the IMV report

i.e., Ex.P5, there is no damage to the vehicle but, sketch clearly

disclose that the bus went on wrong side and incident has also

occurred on the edge of the katcha road and there was a 18 feet

dammar road. The very sketch at Ex.P11 depicts that the

petitioner went on wrong side and dashed against the person,

who was on the edge of the road and nowhere in the cross-

examination suggested to the witnesses particularly, P.Ws.1, 4

and 5 that incident is not on account of rash and negligence on

the part of the petitioner.

13. Having considered both oral and documentary

evidence placed on record and also the reasoning given by the

Trial Court, the Trial Court, while answering point for

consideration, in para No.7 discussed that P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 are

the eye witnesses to the incident and their evidence is believed

and particularly, in para Nos.8, 9 and 10, accepted the evidence

of prosecution witnesses.

14. The Appellate Court also, on re-appreciation of both

oral and documentary evidence placed on record, in para No.14

discussed with regard to the negligence on the part of the

petitioner and appreciating the evidence of prosecution

witnesses, particularly in para No.14, taken note of the evidence

of eye witnesses, who have spoken about manner in which the

driver was driving his vehicle, it clearly establishes that the

driver of the vehicle was driving his vehicle in rash and negligent

manner. However, not considered the document, particularly

Ex.P11-sketch and mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4

and 5. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial

Court as well as the Appellate Court in re-appreciating the

evidence, in order to come to an other conclusion exercising the

revisional jurisdiction. This Court can exercise the revisional

jurisdiction, if the findings of the Trial Court is perverse and the

same is confirmed by the Appellate Court, without considering

the evidence. In the case on hand, I do not find any

circumstance warranting interference and both the Courts have

given anxious consideration to both oral and documentary

evidence placed on record. Hence, I do not find any grounds to

exercise revisional jurisdiction.

15. Now coming to the sentence part is concerned, the

Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for both the

offences i.e., Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC for a period of six

months and imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- and not imposed any

separate punishment. When the ingredients of the offence

under Section 279 of IPC merges with the serious offence of

Section 304-A of IPC, the Trial Court ought to have to have

convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 279 of IPC.

However, taking note of the punishment for the offence under

Section 304-A of IPC, the Trial Court has ordered to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months which is a

minimum sentence for the said offence.

16. The Apex Court also, in the judgment in the case of

State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC

182, wherein in paragraph No.24 of the said judgment, the Apex

Court comes to the conclusion that the principle of sentencing

recognizes the corrective measures but there are occasions when

the deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon the

facts of the case. Hence, the Apex Court set aside the awarding

of payment of compensation is a factor for reduction of

sentence. Further observed that, it is, in a way mockery of

justice. Because justice is "the crowning glory", "the sovereign

mistress" and "queen of virtue" as Cicero had said. Such a crime

blights not only the lives of the victims but of many others

around them. It ultimately shatters the faith of the public in

judicial system. In the said case, the Apex Court, reduced the

sentence from one year to six months for the offence under

Section 304-A of IPC.

17. The counsel would vehemently contend that this

Court can impose fine, instead of substantive sentence and in

the judgment of the Apex Court, the Apex Court held that the

imposition of fine is mockery of justice and the person, who

committed the offence has to be punished. When such being the

factual aspects and minimum substantive sentence for a period

of 6 months is awarded by the Trial Court, I am of the opinion

that, it is not a fit case even to reduce the sentence.

Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(1) and (2) as 'negative'.

Point No.(3)

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

following:

ORDER

The criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST