Dharma vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 2247 Kant

                                         CRL.RP.400/2014
                             1



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL 2023

                          BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                   CRL.R.P.No.400/2014

BETWEEN:

DHARMA
S/O VEERABADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT BACHANAHALLI HOUSE
HOLENAGARASIPUR VILLAGE
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211.                ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI DINESH KUMAR RAO, ADV.)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
BANTWAL CIRCLE, BANTWAL
(BANTWAL RURAL POLICE
STATION) - 574 211.                      ... RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 AND 401 CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DATED:16.11.10 PASSED BY THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
BANTWAL, D.K., IN C.C.NO.1148/2004 AND THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED:1.3.14 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.180/2010 AND
ACQUIT THE PETR.OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM.

     THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESEVED,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
                                               CRL.RP.400/2014
                              2



                           ORDER

1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read

with Section 401 Cr.PC is filed by the accused challenging the

judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated

16.11.2010 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal,

D.K., and the judgment and order dated 01.03.2014 passed

by the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in

Crl.A.No.180/2010.

2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner

and the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records that

may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this revision

petition are, on 28.04.2004 at about 1.30 p.m., the petitioner

who was the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-

19-1736 proceeding from B.C.Road to Parangipete on

National Highway No.48, drove the lorry in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed the same against the jeep

bearing registration No.MEQ 2962 from its hind portion and

as a result, Smt. Hajiramma who was the inmate of the said

jeep fell on the road and the offending lorry driven by the CRL.RP.400/2014

petitioner ran over her body and Smt. Hajiramma succumbed

to the injuries suffered by her on the spot. On the basis of the

complaint lodged by PW-2 - driver of the jeep bearing

registration No.MEQ 2962, the police had registered a case

against the petitioner for the offences punishable under

Sections 279, 338 & 304-A IPC and after completion of the

investigation, had filed a charge sheet against him for the

said offences.

4. The petitioner had appeared before the Trial Court and

claimed to be tried. The prosecution to prove its case had

examined nine witnesses as PWs-1 to 9 and also got marked

16 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-16. The petitioner had denied

the incriminating circumstances available against him on

record during the course of his statement under Section 313

Cr.PC. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated

16.11.2010 convicted the petitioner for the offences for which

he was charged and sentenced him to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of

Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for

a period of 60 days for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

CRL.RP.400/2014

For the offence under Section 279 IPC, the petitioner was

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

one month and to pay fine of Rs.700/- and in default to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days, and for

the offence under Section 338 IPC, the petitioner was

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

three months and to pay fine of Rs.700/- and in default to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The

said judgment and order of conviction and sentence was

confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.180/2010 on

01.03.2014. It is in this factual background, the petitioner is

before this Court.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner for the

alleged offences. He submits that from an overall appreciation

of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, a

serious doubt arises with regard to the genuineness of the

prosecution case. He submits that the driver of the auto

rickshaw and the driver of the bus who were material

witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution.

CRL.RP.400/2014

Referring to IMV report - Ex.P-4 and the evidence of PW-6

who is the author of the said document, he submits that the

jeep had not sustained any damage on its hind portion, and

therefore, the case of the prosecution that the offending lorry

had dashed against the jeep from its hind portion and had

caused the accident cannot be believed. He also refers to the

evidence of PWs-4 & 5 and submits that their version is

contradictory, and therefore, the manner in which the

accident had taken place becomes very doubtful. Accordingly,

he prays to allow the revision petition. Alternatively, he also

submits that the accident is of the year 2010 and the

petitioner who was aged about 27 years at the time of

accident is now married and has got a family of his, and

therefore, a lenient view may be taken while sentencing him.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP has argued in support of the

impugned judgment and order passed by the courts below

and submits that the evidence of PWs-1 to 3, the original

complaint at Ex.P-1 and the spot mahazar - Ex.P-2 would

clearly go to show that the prosecution had proved its case

against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, and CRL.RP.400/2014

therefore, the courts below were justified in convicting the

petitioner for the alleged offences. Accordingly, she prays to

dismiss the revision petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the

material available on record.

8. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner who

was driving the offending lorry in a rash and negligent

manner had dashed against the jeep driven by PW-2 from its

hind portion, in which deceased Hajiramma and PWs-1 & 3

were traveling, and as a result of the impact, PW-2 - driver of

the jeep had lost control of the vehicle and the jeep moved

towards its right side and dashed against the ongoing bus,

thereafter turned turtle and fell on the right side of the road.

Smt. Hajiramma who was sitting in the hind side of the jeep,

fell on the road after the offending lorry dashed against the

jeep and the lorry ran over her body, and as a result, she had

succumbed to the injuries sustained by her on the spot. The

offending lorry had moved further and also dashed against

the auto rickshaw which was coming behind the bus, and as a CRL.RP.400/2014

result, PWs-4 & 5 who were the inmates of the said auto

rickshaw had also sustained injuries in the accident.

9. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined

nine witnesses. PWs-1 to 3 are the inmates of the jeep, while

PWs-4 & 5 are the inmates of the auto rickshaw. PW-6 is the

motor vehicles inspector who had issued the IMV report at

Ex.P-4. PW-7 is the panch witness to the spot mahazar -

Ex.P-2. PW-8 is the Head Constable of Police who had carried

the FIR and produced the same in the house of the

jurisdictional Magistrate. PW-9 is the Investigation Officer

who had completed the investigation and filed charge sheet

against the petitioner.

10. PWs-1 & 3 are the injured who were traveling in the

jeep along with Hajiramma. PW-2 is the driver of the jeep

and he is also the brother of Smt. Hajiramma. All these

witnesses have clearly stated that when the jeep was driven

by its driver in a moderate speed from B.C.Road to

Parangipete, the offending lorry driven by the petitioner in a

rash and negligent manner came in a high speed and dashed

against the jeep from its hind side, and as a result, the door CRL.RP.400/2014

of the jeep opened and Hajiramma who was sitting in the

hind side of the jeep fell on the road and came under the

wheels of the offending lorry, and as a result, due to the

injuries suffered in the accident, she had succumbed to the

same on the spot. They have also identified the petitioner as

the driver of the offending lorry. The complaint was lodged by

PW-2 within a span of one hour from the time of accident and

the manner in which the accident had taken place has been

clearly mentioned by him in his complaint. PWs-1 to 3 have

spoken consistent to the averments made in the complaint.

Nothing much has been elicited from them by the defence

during the course of their cross-examination so as to

disbelieve their version.

11. From the rough sketch - Ex.P-3, it is seen that the

accident has taken place in the middle of the road. The

offending lorry which was behind the jeep had dashed against

the jeep from its hind side and had caused the accident,

which would prima facie prove that the petitioner who was

the driver of the offending lorry was driving the same in a

rash and negligent manner. The material on record would CRL.RP.400/2014

also go to show that after the offending lorry dashed against

the jeep from its hind portion, it moved further and also

dashed against the auto rickshaw in which PWs-4 & 5 were

traveling and thereafter stopped at a distance of about 200

mtrs. from the spot of the accident. This would go to show

that the offending lorry was not only driven by the petitioner

in a rash and negligent manner, but it was also driven in a

high speed.

12. Ex.P-2 is the spot mahazar and PW-2 - complainant in

the present case is also a witness to the said mahazar. PW-7

is another panch witness to Ex.P-2 and he has supported the

case of the prosecution. He has stated that the police had

come to the spot after the accident and PW-2 had shown

them the spot of accident and also the vehicles which were

involved in the accident, and accordingly, Ex.P-2 was drawn

by the police. PW-2 as well as PW-7 have identified their

signature found in Ex.P-2. From the perusal of Ex.P-2, it is

seen that in the said document, not only the particulars of the

spot of accident have been mentioned, but also the damage

which was sustained by the vehicles involved in the accident CRL.RP.400/2014

were also mentioned. From a reading of Ex.P-2, it is seen that

the lorry had sustained damage on its right front side and the

jeep had sustained damage on its hind side and also on the

front and top portion. According to the prosecution, after the

jeep had dashed against the oncoming bus, it had turned

turtle, and therefore, it is quite natural that the jeep would

have sustained damage even on the front and top portion.

13. Ex.P-4 - IMV report has been prepared by PW-6 on the

next day after the accident. In the said report as well as

during the course of his examination-in-chief, PW-6 has

stated that the entire body of the jeep had sustained

damages. However, during the course of his cross-

examination, he had stated that there were no damages on

the hind portion of the jeep, but that itself cannot be the

reason to completely disbelieve the story of the prosecution,

when the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 coupled with Ex.P-2 where

there is a mention with regard to the damage sustained on

the hind portion of the jeep clearly establishes that the

offending lorry had dashed the jeep from its hind side and

had caused the accident.

CRL.RP.400/2014

14. PWs-4 & 5 are the inmates of the auto rickshaw which

was coming from the opposite side and was behind the bus to

which the jeep had dashed after the driver of the jeep had

lost control of the vehicle as a result of the impact of lorry

dashing against the jeep from its hind side. Therefore, it is

quite natural that PWs-4 & 5 would not have seen the

offending lorry dashing against the jeep, and therefore, their

evidence is of not much importance to prove the manner in

which the accident had taken place which had resulted in the

death of Smt. Hajiramma. PWs-1 to 3 have consistently

deposed regarding the manner in which the accident had

taken place and they have also identified the petitioner as the

driver of the offending lorry which had caused the accident.

The evidence of PWs-1 to 3 corroborates each other and the

said evidence coupled with the evidence of PW-7, Ex.P-2 -

spot mahazar and Ex.P-4 - IMV report clearly proves the case

of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In the IMV

report, not only the damage sustained to the offending lorry

and the jeep has been mentioned, but the damages sustained

to the bus and the auto rickshaw have also been mentioned.

CRL.RP.400/2014

The manner in which the accident had taken place and the

damages suffered to the vehicles involved in the accident as

found in Exs.P-2 & P-4 clearly correspond with each other.

The courts below having appreciated the oral and

documentary evidence available on record, therefore, were

fully justified in convicting the petitioner for the offences for

which he was charged. The concurrent findings recorded by

the courts below cannot be interfered by this Court unless the

said judgment suffers from illegality or perversity. Therefore,

I find no good reason to interfere with the judgment and

order of conviction passed by the courts below.

15. The accident had taken place in the year 2010 and for

the last 13 years, the petitioner has been facing the ordeal of

criminal prosecution. It is submitted by the learned Counsel

for the petitioner that the petitioner is now married and he is

the sole earning member of the family. Considering all these

aspects of the matter, I am of the view that if the order of

sentence imposed by the courts below against the petitioner

for the offence under Section 304-A IPC is modified and CRL.RP.400/2014

reduced, the same would serve the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the following order:

16. The criminal revision petition is allowed in part. The

judgment and order of conviction passed by the courts below

convicting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279,

338 & 304-A of IPC are upheld. The order of sentence passed

by the courts below against the petitioner for the offences

under Sections 279 & 338 are left undisturbed. The order of

sentence passed by the Trial Court in so far as it relates to

the offence under Section 304-A of IPC is modified and the

petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of six months and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in

default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

one month.

SD/-

JUDGE

KK