Praveena S B vs State Of Karnataka By
2022 Latest Caselaw 7432 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2022

                      BEFORE

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

    CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.276 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

PRAVEENA S.B.
S/O BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT SHIVASAGAR VILLAGE
SINGAPURA POST, ALUR TALUK
HASSAN - 541 014.                     .. PETITIONER
     (BY SRI LAKSHMIKANTH.K.
     M/S UNNATI LAW CHAMBERS-PRESENT., ADVOCATE )

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SAKALESHPURA TOWN POLICE STATION
BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 01.                        .. RESPONDENT
     (SMT.K.P.YASHODA, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 09.04.2015 PASSED BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SAKALESHPURA IN
C.C.NO.98/2014 AND CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT DATED
01.03.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.66/2015-CONVICTING
THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304(A)
AND 279 OF IPC.
                                                       Crl. R.P.NO.276.2018.
                                  2


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION     THROUGH      PHYSICAL     HEARING/VIDEO
CONFERENCING HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:


                               ORDER

The present petitioner as an accused was convicted for

the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) and

sentenced accordingly in C.C. No.98/2014 by the Court of the

Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Sakaleshpur, (hereinafter for

brevity referred to as "the Trial Court"), in its Judgment and

order on sentence dated 09.04.2015.

2. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an

appeal in Crl.A.No.66/2015 in the Court of the III Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, (hereinafter for brevity

referred to as the "the Sessions Judge's Court"), which Court

after hearing both side, on 01.03.2017 by its judgment confirmed

the order of conviction and sentence impugned in the appeal.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused in the Trial Court has preferred the

present revision petition.

Crl. R.P.NO.276.2018.

3. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that

on 04.06.2014 at about 10.30.p.m. in Sakaleshpura Town on

N.H.48 B.M.Road, near State Bank of Mysore, when the

deceased Jagath Kolchar was going on his motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-21-L-2914 from Sakaleshpura town towards

Champakanagar, on the left side of the road, accused being the

driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-53-B-4300 drove

the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and

coming from opposite side he dashed against the motorcycle of

the deceased, due to which road traffic accident, the deceased

sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Thus, the

accused has committed offence punishable under Section 279,

304(A) of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for brevity referred to

as 'IPC').

4. The accused appeared in the trial Court and

contested the matter through his counsel. He pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried, as such, the trial Court proceeded to

record the evidence, wherein, the complainant got examined

PW-1 to PW-7 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-

10(a). Neither any witness was examined nor any documents Crl. R.P.NO.276.2018.

were marked on behalf of the accused. After hearing both side,

the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment.

5. The trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court's records

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

6. Though this matter is listed for admission, with the

consent from both parties, the matter was taken up for

arguments on main petition on merits.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondent are physically present in the Court.

8. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the

materials placed before this Court, including the trial Court and

Sessions Judge's Court's records.

9. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be

henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the trial

Court.

10. After hearing the learned counsel from both side,

the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision

petition is:

Crl. R.P.NO.276.2018.

Whether the judgments under revision are perverse, illegal and erroneous warranting interference at the hands of this Court?

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his brief

arguments submitted that he would not dispute the occurrence

of the road traffic accident on the date, place and time

mentioned in the charge sheet. He would also not dispute the

fact of death of deceased Jagath Kolchar in the said road traffic

accident who was the rider of the motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-21-L-2914. He would also not dispute that

the said death of Jagath Kolchar was due to the injuries

sustained by him in the said road traffic accident. However, he

would strongly dispute and deny that it was the petitioner and

petitioner alone who was the driver of the offending lorry

bearing registration No.KA-53-B-4300 at the time of the

accident. He further submitted that even though P.W.s 1 and 2

are projected as eye-witness to the incident but, their evidence

regarding identity of the accused would not inspire any

confidence to believe in them. Admittedly, no test identification

parade has been conducted in the matter. He further submits

that P.W.2 though is an independent witness, however his Crl. R.P.NO.276.2018.

presence in this part at the time of the accident is doubtful

since he was unable to mention the colour of the offending

vehicle that is lorry. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves

interference at the hands of this Court.

12. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent in her brief arguments submits

that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eye-witness to the incident who have

given uniform details about the occurrence of the accident.

Their evidence inspires confidence to believe. Both the witness

have seen and identified the accused both at the spot of the

accident as well, in the Court of law. Since the incident has

occurred in the city limits and the witnesses have spoken about

the availability of electricity light in the spot at the time of the

accident, they have identified the accused clearly. She further

contends that P.W.7 who is none other than the representative

of the owner of the offending vehicle himself has stated that it

was the accused and accused himself who was driving the lorry,

belonging to them, at the time of the accident. Thus, the

identity of the accused as well the fact that he was driving the

offending vehicle at the time of accident has been established

beyond doubt. The evidence of the eye-witnesses and the Crl. R.P.NO.276.2018.

medical opinion as shown in the post-mortem report would

clearly go to show that the death of Jagath Kolchar was due the

injuries sustained in the road traffic accident as such due to the

rash and negligent driving of the accused causing death of

deceased Jagath Kolchar has stood proved beyond the

reasonable doubt.

13. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have claimed themselves as

witness to the accident. Both of them have uniformally stated

that on the date of the accident which occurred on 04.06.2014

in the night at about 10:30 p.m. they were going on the same

road on which the deceased Jagath Kolchar was going on his

motorcycle. However, the said motorcycle was ahead of the

motorcars in which these two witnesses were travelling. Both

these witness have also stated that while their vehicles as well

as the motorcycle of the deceased which was being ridden by

the deceased were going on B.M. Road in the town of

Sakaleshpura then in front of the State Bank of Mysore, a lorry

being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from wrong

side and dashed to the motorcycle and dragged the motorcycle

for some distance and came to a halt. Due to the said road

traffic accident the rider of the motor cycle sustained injuries Crl. R.P.NO.276.2018.

and succumbed to it on the spot. Both the witness have further

stated that they have seen the accused in the spot as the driver

of the said lorry, in the electricity light which was available in

the spot.

P.W.1 further has stated that the deceased was his friend

as such after witnessing the accident and seeing the accused he

lodged a complaint in the police station on the night which he

has identified at exhibit P1. He has also stated that on the next

day police visited the spot which is shown by him and drew

scene of offence panchanama in his presence as per exhibit P2.

The witness has also stated that the motorcycle which was

damaged as well the lorry which was stopped near the spot of

the accident were seized by the police under the panchanama.

The Photographs of those vehicles he has identified at exhibit

P3 and P4 respectively.

Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 apart from stating that they have

seen the accused in the spot of the accident as the driver of the

vehicle have also identified him in the Court of law.

14. Both P.W. 1 and P.W.2 were subjected to a detail

cross-examination from the accused side, wherein also denying Crl. R.P.NO.276.2018.

the suggestions made to them the witness have adhered to

their original version that they were the eye-witness to the

accident and it was the accused and accused alone at whose

rash and negligent driving the accident in question had

occurred. Both of them have further stated that after making

the lorry to come to a halt at a small distance away from the

place of the accident, the accused had got down from the lorry

and ran away from the place. Thus, in their cross-examination

they have given more details about the accident and have

further strengthened their evidence that was given in their

examination-in-chief. However, no attempt was made from the

accused side to deny either his identity or the alleged fact that

he was the driver of the offending lorry at the time of the

accident.

15. In addition to the above P.W.7-K.Rajkumar who

claims himself to be the Manager of M/s. Sriram Transport Co.,

to which company the offending vehicle belongs to, has also

stated that after receiving a police notice as per exhibit, P7 he

had visited the police station and came to know about the

accident. He has specifically stated that it was the accused, who

was present before the Court, was appointed as the driver of Crl. R.P.NO.276.2018.

the lorry since about one year prior to the accident and since

then it was the accused and accused alone who was driving the

said lorry. The witness apart from stating that he had got the

release of the said offending vehicle in favour of their company

for their interim custody has also identified the said lorry

through photograph at exhibit P-3. Identified the accused in the

Court. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and more particularly

evidence of P.W.7 who is none other than the employer of the

accused establishes beyond any doubt that it was the accused

and accused alone who was the driver of the offending vehicle

at the time of the accident. Therefore the argument of the

learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not the

driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident is not

acceptable.

16. Both P.W.s 1 and 2 apart from giving detailed

description of the incident have also given details of the

involvement of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-53-B-4300

as the offending vehicle in the accident. Merely because P.W.2

who was one of the commuter in a vehicle on the said road

traffic accident and an eye-witness to the incident was unable

to give specific colour of the lorry, that itself would not create Crl. R.P.NO.276.2018.

any doubt in his evidence that he was an eye-witness to the

incident and the description of the occurrence of the accident

given by him. When the alleged involvement of the lorry

bearing registration No.KA-53-B-4300 has not been specifically

denied or disputed either in cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W.2

or P.W.7 merely because P.W.2 not speaking about the colour

of the lorry would not take away the fact that it was the

offending lorry bearing registration No.KA-53-B-4300 which was

the vehicle involved in the accident as an offending vehicle.

Evidence of P.W-7 gives more weightage to the case of the

prosecution in establishing that it was the said lorry alone that

was involved in the accident as the offending vehicle. Therefore,

the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

inability of P.W.2 to describe the colour of the offending vehicle

would create some doubt in his evidence is also is not

acceptable.

17. P.W.3 has given a detailed account, about police

drawing scene of offence panchanama keeping him as a pancha

to the said panchanama which he has identified at exhibit P2.

P.W.4-the Investigating officer has given the details of the

investigation conducted by him in the case P.W.5-Assistant Crl. R.P.NO.276.2018.

R.T.O., Sakleshpura has spoken about, at the request of the

complainant police he attending to the inspection of the vehicles

involved in the accident and inspecting both the vehicles. He

has also identified IMV report given by him at exhibit P9 and he

has opined that according to him accident was not due to any

mechanical defect of either of the vehicle.

18. Thus, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

though was attempted to be demolished in their cross-

examination but the defense could not able to succeed in the

said attempt. On the other hand the prosecution witness more

particularly P.W. 1, 2 and 7 have not only spoken categorically

about the occurrence of the accident but also involvement of

the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time

of the accident. Thus, the oral evidence as well as the

documentary evidence clearly goes to establish that the road

traffic accident alleged in charge sheet involving the offending

lorry bearing registration No.KA-53-B-4300 has occurred on the

date, time and place alleged in the charge sheet and it was the

accused who was driving the offending vehicle and it was at his

rash and negligent driving alone the accident which resulted in

the death of the deceased Jagath Kolchar has taken place.

Crl. R.P.NO.276.2018.

Thus, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court since

have convicted the accused by appreciating the evidence placed

before them in a proper prospective. I do not find any reason to

interfere in them.

19. It is the sentencing policy that the sentence ordered

must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt. In the

instance case, the Trial Court has sentenced the accused to

undergo simple imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of

`2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC.

In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple

imprisonment of three months. Further, the accused was

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of three months and

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

Section 279 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further

undergo simple imprisonment of one month.

20. Thus, trial Court has convicted the accused for the

alleged guilt and has sentenced him which is proportionate to

the gravity of the proven guilt against the accused, which is

further confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge's Court in the

criminal appeal, instituted by the accused. I do not find Crl. R.P.NO.276.2018.

illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned

judgments, warranting any interference at the hands of this

Court.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of

merits.

Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the Trial

Court and also to the Sessions Judge's Court along with their

respective records, immediately.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GVP