Sri Devaraj vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 1347 Kant

                                              -1-
                                                    CRL.RP No. 646 of 2014




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                        DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                          BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                                 CRL.R.P. NO. 646 OF 2014
                BETWEEN:
                SRI DEVARAJ
                S/O LAKSHMINARAYANA
                AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
                RESIDING AT NO.19/19
                11TH MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS
                SANNAKKIBAYALU
                VRUSHABAVATHI NAGARA
                KAMAKSHIPALYA
Digitally
signed by B A
                BANGALORE - 560 079
KRISHNA
KUMAR
                AND ALSO AT MADHAPATTANA
Location:
High Court of
                VILLAGE, THAVAREKERE HOBLI
Karnataka
                BENGALURU SOUTH
                TALUK - 560 091.
                                                               ...PETITIONER
                (BY SRI LOKANATHA K., ADV.)
                AND:
                STATE OF KARNATAKA
                BY MADHUGIRI POLICE
                REPTD BY ITS STATE
                PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                HIGH COURT BUILDING
                BANGALORE-560001
                                                              ...RESPONDENT
                (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

                     THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 r/w.401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
                SET-ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED ON THE FILE
                OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI IN
                C.C.NO.69/2011 DATED 22.06.2013 AND ALSO THE CRL.A
                NO.5001/2013 DATED 02.08.2014 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL.
                DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MADHUGIRI AND THE PETITIONER
                MAY BE ACQUITTED FOR THE ABOVE OFFENCES, IN THE INTEREST
                OF JUSTICE.

                    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
                COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               -2-
                                      CRL.RP No. 646 of 2014




                           ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') has been filed

by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order of

conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and

JMFC, Madhugiri (for short the 'Trial Court) in C.C.No.69/2011

dated 22.06.2013 which was confirmed by the IV Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Madhugiri (for short the 'Appellate

Court') in Crl.A.No.5001/2013 dated 02.08.2014.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

3. Facts leading to filing of this revision petition as

revealed from the records are that on 06.12.2010 at about

12.00 p.m, the deceased Chithaiah and his grandson Sathish,

who was aged about 7 years were walking towards their

agricultural land on the left side of the Madhugiri-Tumakuru

Road. At that time, the Maruthi Suzuki Wagon R Car bearing

registration No.KA-02-MB-8197 driven by its driver in rash and

negligent manner came from opposite side and dashed against

the deceased Chithaiah and his grandson Sathish causing

grievous injuries to them. Chithaiah succumbed to the injuries

CRL.RP No. 646 of 2014

and his grandson Sathish who had suffered grievous injures

was treated in the hospital. On the basis of the complaint

lodged by PW.3 who was an eye witness to the accident in

question, a case was registered by the jurisdictional police

against the petitioner in Crime No.157/2010 for the offences

punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC.

Subsequently, the investigation was completed and charge

sheet was filed against the petitioner by the Police for the said

offences.

4. The petitioner claimed to be tried before the Trial

Court and therefore, in order to substantiate their case, the

prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses as PWs.1 to P13 and

also got marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13. On behalf of

the accused no defene evidence was led nor was any

documents marked. The articles seized from the spot were

produced and marked as M.Os.1 to 3 before the Trial Court.

The Trial Court thereafter heard the arguments on both sides

and by its judgment and order dated 22.06.2013 convicted the

petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 279, 338 &

304-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of

CRL.RP No. 646 of 2014

Rs.1,500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of two months for the offences punishable Under Section

304-A of IPC and for the offences punishable under Section 338

of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-

and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

two months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order

of conviction, the petitioner had filed an appeal in

Crl.A.No.5001/2013, which was dismissed by the Appellate

Court on 02.08.2014. It is under these circumstances, the

petitioner is before this Court in this criminal revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Courts below had erred in convicting the petitioner for the

alleged offences solely on the basis of evidence of PWs.3 and

11. He submits that PWs.1 and 2 who are independent eye

witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and

even PW.4, who is injured eye witness has also not completely

supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, the Courts

below were not justified in convicting the petitioner for the

alleged offences. He also submits that the material witnesses

have not been examined before the Courts below and therefore

CRL.RP No. 646 of 2014

adverse inference is required to be drawn against the

prosecution. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of

conviction and submits that the evidence of PWs.3 to 11

conclusively establish that the petitioner was the driver of the

offending vehicle at the time of accident and he had caused the

accident due to rash and negligent manner of driving of the

vehicle which had resulted in the death of a pedestrian and also

caused grievous injuries to PW.4 and he therefore, prays to

dismiss the petition.

7. I have carefully considered the arguments

addressed on both the sides and also perused the material

available on record.

8. The accident in question had taken place on

06.12.2010 in a State Highway at about 12.00 in the noon. The

deceased Chithaiah along with his grandson PW4-Sathish were

walking on the left side of the road of Madhugiri- Tumkur Road

towards their agricultural land. The vehicle in question which

was driven by the petitioner came from opposite side and

CRL.RP No. 646 of 2014

dashed against the deceased and his grandson, who were

walking on the side of the road. The complaint averments as

well as spot sketch would go to show that the vehicle had

moved completely towards its right side and dashed against the

deceased Chithaih and his grandson who were walking on the

side of the road. Therefore, it is evident that the vehicle in

question had moved towards the wrong side and had caused

accident in question.

9. PW.3 is the complainant who has lodged the

complaint within a short span of 1hr. 15 minutes after the

accident had taken place. The complaint averments would go to

show that immediately after the accident took place, PW3 and

the petitioner had taken the deceased and the injured to the

hospital in the offending car. Therefore, the presence of the

petitioner and his vehicle at the spot of the accident has came

on record within a short span of time after the accident had

taken place. In his deposition, PW3 had reiterated the

averments made by him in the complaint and has stated that

he had seen the deceased and injured walking on the left side

of the road and at that time, the offending vehicle which was

driven by the petitioner had moved completely towards its right

CRL.RP No. 646 of 2014

side and had dashed against the pedestrian. During the course

of the cross-examination, the defence has not been able to

elicit anything so as to disbelieve this witness. On the other

hand, it has come on record during the course of cross-

examination that at the time of accident no other vehicle

movement was found on the road.

10. The spot mahazar-Ex.P.5 would go to show that the

width of the tar road was 18 feet and on both the side of the

road there was 8 feet wide mud road. PW.11 who is the

registered owner of the vehicle in question was examined by

the Investigation Officer after issuing notice to him as provided

under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act. He has deposed

before the Trial Court that he is the owner of the vehicle in

question and the petitioner was the driver of the said vehicle as

on the date of the accident. He has not denied the involvement

of vehicle in question in the accident that had taken place on

06.12.2010. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with evidence of

PW.3 would clearly establishes the involvement of the

petitioner in the accident in question and the prosecution has

proved that the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle in

question that had caused fatal accident on 06.12.2010 in which

CRL.RP No. 646 of 2014

Chithaiah had expired and PW.4 had sustained grievous

injuries. The spot sketch - Ex.P4 would clearly go to show that

road in which the accident had taken place was a 18 feet wide

road and it is a State Highway. In the cross-examination of

PW.3 it has come on record that at the time of the accident no

other vehicle movement was found in the said road. Therefore,

it is very clear that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in a

rash and negligent manner and had dashed against the

pedestrian who was walking on the left side of the road. The

evidence of PW.3, perusal of complaint, spot mahazar and

rough sketch would go to show that the vehicle had moved

completely towards its right side and dashed against the

pedestrians who were walking on their left side of the road.

11. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court

having appreciated this aspect of the matter have rightly held

the petitioner guilty of alleged offences and accordingly,

convicted him for the alleged offences. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court time and again has stated that the punishment for the

offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC should be in

the nature of deterrent and the minimum imprisonment should

not be less than six months.

CRL.RP No. 646 of 2014

12. In the present case, the petitioner has been

convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338

and 304(A) of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under

Section 304(A) of IPC which is the substantive sentence. Under

the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in

the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence

passed by the Courts below and the same does not call for

interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional

jurisdiction. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition.

Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NMS