Sri G Nagaraju vs State By Cpi
2023 Latest Caselaw 1489 Kant

                                            -1-
                                                  CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

                                         BEFORE
                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                      CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 387 OF 2015
                 BETWEEN:

                 1.    SRI G NAGARAJU
                       S/O GOVINDAPPA
                       AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
                       NAYAK BY CASTE
                       DRIVER OF CAR BEARING
                       NO. KA-04/MD-3681
                       R/AT DODDABELI VILLAGE,
                       KENGERI HOBLI,
                       BANGALORE RURAL DISTICT.
                                                          ...PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by B A    (BY SRI. Y S SHIVAKUMARA, ADVOCATE)
KRISHNA
KUMAR
Location: High
Court of         AND:
Karnataka

                 1.    STATE BY CPI
                       SRIRANGAPATNA CIRCLE,
                       SRIRANGAPATNA
                       REPRESENTED BY
                       STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                       HIGH COURT BUILDING,
                       BANGALORE.
                                                         ...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 IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
                 DATED 26.8.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. SR. C.J. AND
                 J.M.F.C., SRIRANGAPATNA IN C.C.NO.117/2009 AND
                 DATED 20.2.2015 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND
                 S.J., MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) IN
                               -2-
                                       CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015




CRL.A.NO.5015/2014 IN BY THE TRIAL COURT AS WELL
AS THE SESSIONS COURT.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

This criminal revision petition is filed challenging the

judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by

the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,

Srirangapatna in C.C.No.117/2009 dated 26.08.2014 and

the judgment and order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the

Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya

(sitting at Srirangapatna) in Crl.A.No.5015/2014.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent - State.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the

records which would be necessary for the purpose of

disposal of this criminal revision petition are, on

26.05.2008 at about 3.30 p.m., in front of the house of

Sannathammegowda on the road towards Balamuri, in

CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015

Belagola Village, the deceased N. Raghu son of M.

Narayana was walking on the left side of the Belagola -

Balamuri Road. The Innova car bearing Registration No.

KA.04.MD.3681 which was driven in a rash and negligent

manner by the petitioner came from the hind side and

dashed against the deceased N. Raghu who fell down on

the road and sustained grievous injuries on his head.

Immediately he was shifted to the hospital but on the way

he died. The petitioner had no driving licence to drive any

vehicle. On the basis of the complaint lodged by PW.1 -

M. Kumara, FIR was registered against the petitioner for

offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC

and Section 3 of Motor Vehicles Act. Police after

investigation had filed a charge-sheet against the

petitioner for the aforesaid offences and the petitioner

claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution to prove its case had examined 8

witnesses before the trial Court as PW.1 to PW.8 and also

got marked 8 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The

incriminating material available on record was denied by

CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015

the petitioner during his Section 313 Cr.P.C., statement.

However, he did not chose to lead any defence evidence

nor any document was marked in support of the defence.

The trial Court after hearing the arguments on both sides,

by the judgment and order dated 26.08.2014 convicted

the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections

279 and 304A of IPC and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles

Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment

for three months and pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence

punishable under Section 279 of IPC and in default to pay

fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

For the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC

the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.500/-

and in default he was directed to undergo simple

imprisonment for one month. Petitioner was also

sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence

punishable under Section 181 of Motor Vehicle Act and in

default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of

conviction, the petitioner had filed criminal appeal

No.5015/2014, which was dismissed by the appellate

Court on 20.02.2015. Under these circumstances, the

petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the oral

and documentary evidence available on record and have

erred in convicting the petitioner. He submits that PWs.1

to 5 are all interested witnesses and therefore, the trial

Court as well as appellate Court could not have placed

reliance on the evidence of these interested witnesses. He

submits that the material on record do not show that the

petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and

negligent manner and therefore the Courts below were not

justified in convicting the petitioner. In support of his

contention he has placed reliance on the judgment of the

High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Revision

No.134/2011 disposed of on 18.12.2017 in the case of

Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.

CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015

7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent has supported the

judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by

the Courts below and submits that the eye witnesses have

clearly stated that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in

rash and negligent manner and the petitioner has been

identified as the driver of the vehicle in question by the

eye witnesses. He also submits that PWs.4 and 5 who are

the spot mahazar panch witnesses, have supported the

case of the prosecution and therefore, the Courts below

are justified in convicting the petitioner for alleged

offences and accordingly, prays to dismiss the revision

petition.

8. I have carefully considered the arguments

addressed on both the sides and also perused the material

available on record.

9. The accident in question had taken place at about

3.30 p.m., and the offending vehicle had dashed against

the deceased N. Raghu who was walking on the left hand

CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015

side of the road. The vehicle in question had come from

behind and dashed against him and as a result he fell

down on the road and had suffered grievous injuries on his

head. PW.1 who is a eye witness to the accident had

lodged the complaint and during the course of his

deposition he has reiterated the complaint averments and

he has also identified the petitioner as the driver of the

offending vehicle at the time of the accident. PWs.2 and 3

are also the eye witnesses to the incident and they have

also deposed before the trial Court to the effect that the

petitioner was driving the vehicle in question in a rash and

negligent manner at the time of accident and they have

identified the petitioner as the driver of the vehicle at the

time of the accident.

10. PWs.4 and 5 who are the spot mahazar

witnesses, have all supported the case of the prosecution

and they have stated that police had come to the spot and

drawn the spot mahazar and they have also identified their

signature in the spot mahazar report which is produced as

Ex.P2. PW.7 is the motor vehicle inspector who has given

CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015

a report as per Ex.P6 and he has deposed that the

offending vehicle had no mechanical defect at the time of

accident. PWs.6 and 8 are the investigation officers who

have conducted the investigation, recorded the statement

of eye witnesses and filed the charge-sheet. The trial

Court as well as the appellate Court after appreciating the

evidence of the eye witnesses, spot mahazar witnesses,

motor vehicle inspector and the Investigation Officers have

recorded a concurrent finding against the petitioner. I do

not find any illegality or irregularity in such a finding

recorded by Courts below. The involvement of the

petitioner in the accident in question has been established

by the prosecution and the eye witnesses have clearly

stated that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle

in a rash and negligent manner and there is nothing to

disbelieve the version of the eye witnesses.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance on the judgment in Rakesh Kumar's case supra

and has submitted that the eye-witnesses examined in this

case are either relatives of the deceased or they are from

CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015

the same village, and therefore, they have to be

considered as interested witnesses and no reliance can be

placed on their evidence for the purpose of convicting the

petitioner. In the present case, PWs-1 to 3 who are the

eye-witnesses are all from the same village. It is quite

natural that in cases of road traffic accident, normally

persons belonging to the locality or the village would only

be the eye-witnesses and their presence at the spot is

probable. Amongst three eye-witnesses, PW-1 is the

distant relative of the deceased and PWs-2 & 3 are not the

relatives of the deceased. Therefore, there is no merit in

the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner

that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of these

witnesses for the purpose of convicting the petitioner. The

judgment in Rakesh Kumar's case supra, therefore, would

not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this

case. These witnesses have not only spoken with regard to

the rash and negligent manner in which the vehicle was

driven by the petitioner, but they have also identified the

- 10 -

CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015

petitioner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of

accident.

12. Unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate

before this Court that the judgment and order passed by

the courts below are either perverse or illegal, this Court

in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere

with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below.

The impugned judgment and order does not suffer from

any illegality or irregularity which calls for interference by

this Court and accordingly, I see no merit in this revision

petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

HB/KK