Karnataka High Court
Sidram@ Beerappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 August, 2023
Bench: Venkatesh Naik Vntj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6169
CRL.RP No. 200039 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200039 OF 2019 (397)
BETWEEN:
SIDRAM@ BEERAPPA
S/O. CHANDRAM @ CHANDRAMAPPA HALLI,
AGE: 28 YEARS OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. MAYAR,
TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURGI-585103
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SHILPA R
TENIHALLI AND:
Location:
HIGH COURT THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
OF R/BY ADDL. SPP
KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585106.
(THROUGH SINDAGI P.S.
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP)
CRL.RP FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO,
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED: 08.02.2019 PASSED BY
THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIJAYAPURA, IN
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6169
CRL.RP No. 200039 of 2019
CRL.A.NO.35/2017 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
DATED:12.05.2017 PASSED BY ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC SINDAGI AT SINDAGI IN CRIMINAL CASE
NO.203/2014 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 279, 337
& 304(A) OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING AND
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 01.08.2023 COMING
ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The revision petitioner has filed this petition under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') praying to set aside
the judgment dated 08.12.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.35/2017 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Vijayapura (for short 'First Appellate Court') and also
praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order
on sentence dated 12.05.2017 passed by the Second
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindagi (for short 'Trial
Court') in C.C.No.203/2014 for the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') to acquit the revision
petitioner.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6169
CRL.RP No. 200039 of 2019
2. The parties will be referred to as per their rank
before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as
under:
The complainant - Siddappa (PW.1) filed a complaint
as per Ex.P1 before the Sindagi police on 07.12.2013, at
1.30 hours and alleged that on the same day, he was
returning to his village along with his son Kedarling
(deceased) in a tum-tum vehicle bearing registration
No.KA-32/C-677 driven by the accused. When the vehicle
crossed Devar-Hipparagi road and came towards Sindagi
in a high speed. PW.1 told the accused that there was no
urgency and asked him to go slow and even then, he
drove the said vehicle in a high speed, rash or negligent
manner, lost control over the vehicle thus, turtled the
vehicle on NH-218, Vijayapura to Kalaburagi road on the
left side in a drainage. Accordingly, the accused and
Kedarling sustained injuries and was shifted to hospital,
but, on the way to hospital, he succumbed to the injuries.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6169
CRL.RP No. 200039 of 2019
Thus, PW.1 lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1 and on the
basis of Ex.P1, SHO registered a case in Crime
No.297/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections
279, 337 and 304-A of IPC. Later, the Investigating
Officer after completing the investigation, filed charge
sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case
against the accused, examined in all seven witnesses as
PWs.1 to 7 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to
P11. The accused was also examined before the Court
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court on the basis
of oral and documentary evidence on record convicted the
accused for the aforesaid offences.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction
and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused
preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.35/2017 before
the First Appellate Court and in turn, the First Appellate
Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused and
confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6169
CRL.RP No. 200039 of 2019
by the Trial Court in C.C.No.203/2014. Being aggrieved
by the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, the
accused has preferred this revision petition.
6. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/accused contended that the judgment passed by
the Trial Court is manifestly illegal and against the facts
and evidence on record. It is contended that the offence
under Section 279 of IPC is a technical offence and it
merges with the major offence punishable under Section
304-A of IPC and therefore, separate sentence cannot be
awarded in respect of the offence under Section 279 of
IPC. It is contended that since the mahazar witness and
IMV inspector have not been examined, the Trial Court
ought to have extended the benefit of doubt in respect of
non-examination of important witnesses in this case. It is
contended that the Trial Court has failed to give
reasonable opportunity of hearing on sentence. It is
contended that the Trial Court has not at all taken into
consideration of evidence of witnesses and it has given
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6169
CRL.RP No. 200039 of 2019
unnecessary waitage to the interested witnesses though
there are some omissions and contradictions in their
testimony. Further, the reasons assigned by the Trial
Court for convicting the accused are not proper and they
are contrary to the principles of natural justice. On all
these grounds, the learned counsel prays to set aside the
judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First appellate
Court.
7. The learned High Court Government Pleader
submits that the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court have given concurrent finding and the prosecution
has proved its case beyond doubt. Therefore, the Trial
Court has rightly convicted the accused for the aforesaid
offences. Hence, he justifies the judgment passed by the
Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, the following points would arise for consideration:
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6169
CRL.RP No. 200039 of 2019
1. Whether the judgment of conviction
and sentence under challenge regarding
conviction of the accused is manifestly suffers
from illegality, warranting inference in this
revision petition?
2. What order?
9. Point No.1 - It is the case of the prosecution
that on the relevant date, time and place, the accused
being a driver of tum-tum vehicle bearing registration
No.KA-32/C-0677 drove his vehicle in a rash or negligent
manner, lost his control over the vehicle, capsized in a
road side drainage and due to which, he himself sustained
simple injuries and caused the death of Kedarling.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is just and necessary to analyze Sections 279, 337
and 304-A of IPC, which reads as under:
"Section 279 - Rash driving or riding on a
public way.- Whoever drives any vehicle, or
rides, on any public way in a manner so rash
or negligent as to endanger human life, or t be
likely to cause hurt or injury to any other
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6169
CRL.RP No. 200039 of 2019
person, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend
to six months, or with fine which may extend
to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 337 - Causing hurt by act
endangering life or personal safety of others.-
Whoever causes hurt or any person by doing
any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger
human life, or the personal safety of others,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine which may extend to five
hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 304-A - causing death by
negligence. -Whoever causes the death of any
person by doing any rash or negligent act not
amounting to culpable homicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both."
11. In the light of the aforesaid provisions of law, it
is just and necessary to analyze the evidence of the
prosecution. PW.1 - Siddappa, who is the father of the
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6169
CRL.RP No. 200039 of 2019
deceased - Kedarling and who was travelling in tum-tum
vehicle at the time of the accident along with his son, has
stated that his son and accused sustained injuries.
Therefore, PW.1 is an eyewitness to the incident and was
also an injured witness has stated that his son was injured
in the accident and on the way to hospital, his son
succumbed to the injuries and therefore, he lodged a
complaint as per Ex.P1 and on the following day, he had
shown the spot of the accident to the police and in turn,
the police drew panchanama as per Ex.P4 and police also
conducted inquest panchanama on the dead body of
Kedarling as per Ex.P3. Further, he had identified the
accused before the Court and in his cross-examination,
nothing worthwhile has been elicited from his mouth.
12. PW.2 - Bhagamma is the mother of the
deceased - Kedarling and wife of PW.1 and she was a
circumstantial witness. She has stated in her evidence
what she has heard in the news about the accident
through PW.1. She has stated that, PW.1 informed her
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6169
CRL.RP No. 200039 of 2019
about the accident and the accident was due to the
negligent act of the accused.
13. PW.3 - Hanamantray and PW.4 - Nanagouda
are also circumstantial witnesses. They stated before the
Court that, PW.1 informed them about the accident and
hence, they came to know about the accident and
negligent act of the accused.
14. PW.5 - Dr.Santosh, who conducted autopsy on
the dead body of deceased - Kedarling has stated that, on
07.12.2013, as per the request of the Investigating
Officer, conducted postmortem examination on the dead
body of Kedarling and he issued postmortem report as per
Ex.P6 and on the same day, he also examined the accused
and issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P9. He has
clearly opined that the death of the deceased - Kedarling
was due to head injury.
15. PW.6 - Ranganath and PW.7 - Gangadhar are
the Investigating Officers, who registered the case and
conducted panchanama, inquest panchanama, prepared
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6169
CRL.RP No. 200039 of 2019
sketch, recorded the statement of the witnesses, received
documents and filed charge sheet.
16. On perusal of the prosecution witnesses, it
appears that PW.1 is an eyewitness and also injured
witness to the incident and he is the father of deceased
Kedarling, he was travelling along with his son at the time
of the accident and he also received some minor injuries in
the accident. PW.1 has identified the accused and identity
of the accused is not disputed by the defence also. So,
one fact is proved that, on the relevant date, time and
place, the accused alone was drove his vehicle on the
public road.
17. So far as rash and negligent act is concerned,
PW.1 being an eyewitness to the accident and PWs.2 to 4
being the circumstantial witnesses have clearly stated
that, on the relevant date, time and place, the accused
drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner though
some of the inmates of the vehicle including PW.1 have
instructed the accused to drive the vehicle slowly and in
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6169
CRL.RP No. 200039 of 2019
spite of it, the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and turtled in a road side drainage,
which resulted into injuries to several inmates of the
vehicle and death of deceased - Kedarling.
18. On perusal of Ex.P7 - IMV report and the oral
evidence of PW.7, the accident was not occurred due to
any mechanical defect of the vehicle. Therefore, one
factor is proved that, the accident in question was not due
to the mechanical defect of the vehicle in question, but,
the same has been caused due to rash and negligent
driving of the accused. In the instant case, PW.1 has
identified the accused and the fact that the identity of the
accused is not disputed by the accused. The fact that the
manner of the accident is not disputed by the defence.
The cause of death of deceased Kedarling is also not
disputed by the defence. Further more, the accused
himself sustained simple injuries as per Ex.P9 in the very
same accident. Thus, the injuries sustained by the
accused as well as cause of death of deceased - Kedarling
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6169
CRL.RP No. 200039 of 2019
is not disputed by the accused. On perusal of Ex.P3 -
inquest panchanama and Ex.P6 - postmortem report of
Kedarling would reveal that the deceased - Kedarling died
due to the accidental injuries.
19. Looking into any angle, the complainant and
other witnesses have deposed about the manner of the
accident and they have identified the accused and injuries
sustained by PW.1 and they deposed before the Court
about the death of deceased - Kedarling in the accident.
So, the entire evidence clearly establishes that, the
accused drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner
so as to endanger the human life and cause of accident
resulting into death of deceased - Kedarling.
20. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court appreciated all the oral and documentary evidence,
admissions of the accused and have proceeded to convict
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
279, 337 and 304-A of IPC, by which in the opinion of the
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6169
CRL.RP No. 200039 of 2019
Court, neither perverse nor capricious and no interference
is called for.
21. So far as imposing of sentence is concerned,
the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under
Section 279 of IPC and directed him to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
So far as offence under Section 337 of IPC is concerned,
the Trial Court directed the accused to pay fine of Rs.500/-
and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 15 days. So far as the
offence under Section 304-A of IPC is concerned, The Trial
Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and
shall pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
one month. In this regard, the counsel for petitioner
submitted that, the deceased herself got injuries on his
person, he is also a victim in this case, he is a first
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6169
CRL.RP No. 200039 of 2019
offender, therefore, by extending the benefit of Probation
of Offenders Act, petitioner be acquitted.
22. In the case of State of Punjab vs. Saurabh
Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has awarded a sentence by extending
leniency in awarding sentence and has convicted the
appellant/accused for a period of one year/six months for
the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.
Hence, in the present case, a lenient view has been taken
considering the fact that, accused sustained injury and
himself a tortfeasor. To that extent, the judgment of the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is modified.
23. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the
accused/petitioner deserves to be partly allowed.
Accordingly, the point framed above is answered in the
partly affirmative. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6169
CRL.RP No. 200039 of 2019
ORDER
The revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly
allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed
by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court convicting
the accused/petitioner under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC,
is confirmed. However, insofar as sentence in respect of
offence under Section 304-A of IPC is concerned, it is
modified and reduced for a period of one year from two
years and the fine amount imposed by both the Courts are
maintained.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SRT
