Karnataka High Court
Shivanand vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 August, 2023
Bench: Venkatesh Naik Vntj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6153
CRL.RP No. 200022 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. 200022 OF 2019 (397)
BETWEEN:
SHIVANAND
S/O. NARAYANAPPA BADGER
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC DRIVER
R/O. SHIRUR
TQ. & DIST. BAGALKOT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL AND
SRI. ANIL KUMAR NAVADAGI, ADVOCATES)
Digitally signed
by SHILPA R AND:
TENIHALLI
Location: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT THROUGH GRAMEEN POLICE STATION
OF KALABURGI, REPT. BY ADDL. SPP
KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
KALABURAGI-585107
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W SEC. 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 30-11-2018,
PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
KALABURAGI, IN CRL. APPEAL NO.20/2014 AND FURTHER BE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6153
CRL.RP No. 200022 of 2019
PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 28-04-2014 OF THE COURT OF V
ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, KALABURAGI, IN
C.C.NO.3456/2011 FOR OFFENCE U/SEC.304(A) AND FURTHER
BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF THE CHARGES
FOR WHICH HE IS CONVICTED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The 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 and order of sentence passed by the V
Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalaburagi (for
short 'Trial Court) in C.C.No.3456/2011 and also to set
aside the judgment and order dated 30.11.2018 passed by
the III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi
(for short 'First Appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal
No.20/2014 and consequently to acquit the petitioner for
the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and under
Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short 'M.V.Act').
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6153
CRL.RP No. 200022 of 2019
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be
referred to as per their ranks before the Trail Court.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
19.03.2011, at about 11.30 a.m., the deceased - Sanju
was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-32/X-
9664 from Kalaburagi to Humnabad side, at that time, the
driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-38/F-
403 came in a high speed with rash or negligent manner
to endanger the human life, thus, dashed against the
motorcycle. Hence, the rider of the motorcycle sustained
injuries and immediately he was shifted to hospital at
Kalaburagi and after he was shifted Solapur hospital for
higher treatment and on the way to the hospital, he
succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the brother of the
deceased lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1.
4. On the basis of the complaint, the Rural Police,
Kalaburagi registered a case against the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC
and under Section 187 of the M.V.Act and in turn, the
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6153
CRL.RP No. 200022 of 2019
Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and filed
charge sheet. After filing of the charge sheet, the Trial
Court took cognizance in C.C.No.3456/2011 against the
accused for the aforesaid offences, secured the presence
of the accused, recorded plea of the accused for the
offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and Section
187 of the M.V.Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case,
examined in all 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked
the documents as per Exs.P1 to P14. After closure of the
prosecution evidence, the Trial Court recorded the
statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by
explaining the incriminating materials available in the
prosecution case and the case of the accused was of total
denial. The accused did not enter the witness box and has
not adduced any evidence on his behalf.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6153
CRL.RP No. 200022 of 2019
6. The Trial Court based on the oral and
documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused
for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A
of IPC and under Section 187 of the M.V.Act and
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 6 months for the offence punishable under
Section 304-A of IPC only by holding that Section 279 of
IPC also merged with Section 304-A of IPC in view of the
law laid down by this Court in the case of M.Nagaraj vs.
State by white Field Police reported in 2004 (3) KCCR
1799.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction
and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused
preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in
Criminal Appeal No.20/2014, assailing various grounds to
acquit him for the aforesaid offences. The First Appellate
Court considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused under
Section 374 of Cr.P.C. by confirming the judgment of
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6153
CRL.RP No. 200022 of 2019
conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in
C.C.No.3456/2011 dated 28.04.2014. Being aggrieved by
the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court, the accused has filed this revision
petition.
8. Heard the learned counsel for parties to the lis.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused
contended that the judgment and order passed by both
the Courts are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. It is
contended that the Trial Court has not property
appreciated the evidence on record and it found the
accused guilty on the basis of the oral testimony of
interested witnesses. It is contended that both the Courts
have failed miserably in believing the oral testimony of
PW.1 - Mohan and PW.3 - Hanumanth, who were so called
eyewitnesses to the incident. It is contended that on a
plain reading of Ex.P6 - spot panchanama and Ex.P8 -
rough sketch, the scene of accident was shown in the
middle of the State Highway i.e., 30 ft. wide and it can be
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6153
CRL.RP No. 200022 of 2019
safely inferred that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, thus, the rider of
the motorcycle has violated the road traffic rules and
safety norms. It is contended that the Medical Officer has
not been examined, who conducted the postmortem
examination on the body of the deceased and who issued
the wound certificate. The Motorcycle Inspector and the
owner of the motorcycle were also not examined. On all
these grounds, the learned counsel prayed to allow the
revision petition and also prayed to set aside the judgment
of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts.
10. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader contended that the judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by both the Courts are in accordance with
law. It is contended that death of deceased is not
disputed by the accused. The fact that, the accident in
question is also not disputed by the accused and manner
of accident and identity of the accused is also not
disputed. It is contended that, both the Courts have given
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6153
CRL.RP No. 200022 of 2019
concurrent finding as to the guilt of the accused. Hence,
he justified the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by both the Courts and thus, prayed for
dismissal of the revision petition.
11. It is the case of the prosecution that on
19.03.2011, at about 11.30 a.m., deceased - Sanju was
riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-32/X-
9664 from Kalaburagi to Humnabad, the accused being a
driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-38/F-403,
came from opposite direction, in a high speed, rash or
negligent manner and dashed against the rider of the
motorcycle, thus, Sanju sustained injuries and later, he
succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, PW.1 lodged a
complaint as per Ex.P1.
12. The prosecution in order to prove its case
examined PW.1 - Mohan and PW.3 - Hanumanth, who are
eyewitnesses to the incident and they have categorically
stated about the manner of the accident and role of the
accused. They have stated about spot panchanama and
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6153
CRL.RP No. 200022 of 2019
inquest panchanama conducted by the Investigating
Officer.
13. PW.2 - Ravi is a panch witness to the spot
panchanama (Ex.P6) and he has supported the case of the
prosecution. PW.4 - Rukumabai is the mother of the
deceased and she stated about the incident that, she came
to know about the incident through PW.1.
14. PW.5 - Vijaylaxmi is the Investigating Officer
who conducted the investigation. PW.6 - Vaijinath is the
Station House Officer, who registered the case. PW.7 -
Sunilkumar is the Senior Manager of the KSRTC, who has
stated that, on the relevant date, time and place, the
accused was the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing
registration No.KA-38/F-403 and the said bus was plied in
between Humnabad and Kalaburagi. PW.8 - Rajshekar is
another Investigating Officer, who completed the
investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6153
CRL.RP No. 200022 of 2019
15. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
considering the oral and documentary evidence on record,
come to the conclusion that, the accident was due to rash
and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC bus and
the accident in question was not due to rash and negligent
riding by the rider of the motorcycle i.e., deceased -
Sanju. On perusal of Exs.P6 and P8, it appears that the
driver of the KSRTC bus was proceedings from Humnabad
to Kalaburagi and the driver of the bus came extremely
towards right side and dashed to the motorcycle of the
deceased and hence, the accident occurred. It shows that
the driver of the KSRTC bus was on his extreme right side
and the accident was due to his negligence act. Looking
into any angle, the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record, have come to the conclusion that the
prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
16. In the case of State of Punjab vs. Saurabh
Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182, the Hon'ble
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6153
CRL.RP No. 200022 of 2019
Supreme Court has awarded a sentence by extending
leniency in awarding sentence and has convicted the
appellant/accused for a period of one year for the offence
under Section 304-A of IPC. Admittedly, the prosecution
has not preferred any appeal for enhancement of sentence
either before the First the Appellate Court or before this
Court. Therefore, considering the lenient view taken by
both the Courts, it is just and necessary to dismiss the
revision petition as there is no merit in the revision
petition. Accordingly, the Court pass the following:
ORDER
The revision petition field by the accused is
dismissed. The judgment of the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court, convicting the accused under Section
304-A of IPC is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SRT
