Karnataka High Court
Sri Nagaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 22 February, 2023
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
CRL.RP No. 855 of 2014
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
CRL.R.P. NO. 855 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
SRI NAGARAJU
S/O RUDRA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
NOW R/O OLD POST
OFFICE ROAD, KALLA HALLI
MANDYA DIST - 571 401
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI H.P. LEELADHAR., ADV.)
Digitally
signed by B A AND:
KRISHNA
KUMAR STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: High
Court of ARAKERE POLICE STATION
Karnataka
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DIST
PIN - 571 438.
...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 JUDGMENT, CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DATED:7.12.11 PASSED BY THE PRL.C.J. (SR.DN.) AND JMFC,
SRIRANGAPATNA IN C.C.NO.52/2008 AND ALSO ORDERS OF THE
APPELLATE COURT IN CRL.A.NO.4/12 PASSED BY THE III
ADDL.DIST. AND S.J., MANDYA SIT AT SRIRANGAPATNA
DATED:15.7.13 AND ACQUIT THE PETR. BY ALLOWING THE PETN.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.RP No. 855 of 2014
ORDER
This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.PC is
filed challenging the judgment and order dated 07.12.2011
passed by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & JMFC,
Srirangapatna, in C.C.No.52/2008 and the judgment and order
dated 15.07.2013 passed by the Court of III Addl. District &
Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Crl.A.No.4/2012.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the
learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records
that may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this
petition are, on 06.12.2017 at about 7.30 to 8.00 p.m., with
the limits of Arakere Police Station, Arakere Town, near the
shop of one Siddappa at Mandya-Mysuru Road, the deceased
Manjunatha was walking on the left side of the road and at that
time, the offending lorry bearing No.KA-11-3669 driven by the
petitioner in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the
said Manjunatha who suffered grievous injuries and succumbed
to the same at the spot. On the basis of the complaint
registered by PW-1 - Umesh who is the alleged eye-witness,
CRL.RP No. 855 of 2014
FIR was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.164/2007
for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 340-A IPC.
4. The police after investigation had filed charge sheet
against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and since the
petitioner claimed to be tried before the Trial Court, the
prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined five
witnesses as PWs-1 to 5 and also got marked six documents as
Exs.P-1 to P-6. The petitioner had denied the incriminating
evidence available on record during the course of his statement
under Section 313 Cr.PC and has stated that his vehicle was
not involved in the accident. However, he did not choose to
lead any evidence nor any document was marked in support of
his defence.
5. The Trial Court, thereafter, heard the arguments of
both sides and by its judgment and order dated 07.12.2011
convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 &
304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of six months for the offence under Section 304-A
IPC, and for the offence under Section 279 IPC, the petitioner
was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to
CRL.RP No. 855 of 2014
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction
and sentence, the petitioner had filed Crl.A.No.4/2012 before
the Appellate Court, which was dismissed on 15.07.2013. It is
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 erred in convicting the petitioner for the
alleged offences. He submits that the material on record do not
show that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner at the time of accident. He submits that PWs-
1 & 2 who are the alleged eye-witnesses have not supported
the case of the prosecution and they have also not identified
the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time
of accident. He submits that the evidence of PW-2 would go to
show that he was not an eye-witness and admittedly he was
standing at a distance when the accident had taken place. In
support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of P.M.RAJU VS STATE OF KARNATAKA -
(1977)1 Kant.LJ 260.
CRL.RP No. 855 of 2014
7. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the
respondent-State has argued in support of the impugned
judgment and order of conviction and sentence and submits
that the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding
against the petitioner holding him guilty of the offences alleged
against him. He submits that the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 clearly
establish that the petitioner was the driver of the offending
vehicle at the time of accident and he was driving the vehicle in
question in a rash and negligent manner, and therefore, there
is no scope for interference by this Court against the concurrent
findings recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, he prays to
dismiss the petition.
8. The prosecution in order to establish its case has, in
all, examined five witnesses as PWs-1 to 5 before the Trial
Court. PWs-1 to 3 are the alleged eye-witnesses. PW-1 is the
complainant in the case. This witness has clearly stated that on
the date of accident, he had heard deceased Manjunatha
shouting and when he went to the spot, he saw that deceased
Manjunatha had come under the wheels of the lorry and had
suffered grievous injuries. He has also stated that deceased
CRL.RP No. 855 of 2014
person was a pedestrian. However, he has not stated that he
had seen the lorry dashing against the deceased nor has he
stated anything with regard to the manner in which the lorry
was driven by the petitioner at the time of causing the
accident. He has identified the petitioner as the driver who was
driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
9. PW-2 is another alleged eye-witness. He has stated
that the lorry which was driven in high speed came from
Mysuru side and dashed against deceased Manjunatha and
immediately thereafter, the people who had gathered there
apprehended the driver of the lorry and handed over him to the
police. He has also identified the petitioner as the driver of the
offending vehicle who had caused the accident. However, even
this witness has not stated that the offending lorry was driven
in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. All that
he has stated is that the lorry which came from Mysuru side in
a high speed had dashed against the deceased. The spot sketch
at Ex.P-4 would go to show that after the accident, the lorry
had stopped at a distance of 12 feet from the dead body.
Therefore, it is very clear that the lorry was not driven in high
speed as stated by PW-2. If the lorry was driven in high speed,
CRL.RP No. 855 of 2014
the driver of the said lorry could not have stopped the lorry
within a distance of 12 feet from the place of accident. PW-2
has stated that at the time of accident, he was in front of a
bakery which was about 20 feet away from the accident spot.
The existence of such bakery within the vicinity of the accident
spot is not found in the rough sketch - Ex.P-4. Whether PW-2
could have seen the offending vehicle from the place where he
was standing and whether he could have seen the accident
from the place where he was standing, therefore, cannot be
ascertained from the evidence which is available on record.
10. PW-3 - another eye-witness has not supported the
case of the prosecution and he has stated that he has not seen
the accident in question and also he has not seen the driver of
the offending vehicle. PWs-4 & 5 are the Police Sub-Inspector
and Police Inspector who respectively have registered the FIR,
prepared the rough sketch of the spot, conducted the
investigation and have filed the charge sheet. The evidence of
PWs-4 & 5 does not in any way help the prosecution for
establishing the guilt of the petitioner. Therefore, the only other
evidence available on record would be the evidence of PWs-1
& 3.
CRL.RP No. 855 of 2014
11. PWs-1 & 3 have not fully supported the case of the
prosecution and both the witnesses have been cross-examined
by the prosecution. Then the only evidence which is required to
be appreciated is of PW-2. He admittedly was standing at a
distance of 20 feet away from the accident spot, in front of a
bakery at the time of accident. Even the said witness has not
stated about the rash and negligent manner of driving by the
petitioner. He has only stated that the offending lorry was
coming from Mysuru side in high speed and the said statement
of his, is difficult to believe for the reason that the vehicle in
question had stopped at a distance of 12 feet from the place of
accident. Nobody has spoken about the manner in which the
offending vehicle was driven by its driver at the time of
accident. Since the evidence of PW-2 is not free from doubt, for
the purpose of convicting the accused, it cannot be completely
relied upon. In my considered view, the courts below have
failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and have erred in
convicting the petitioner for the alleged offences based on the
evidence of PWs-1 to 3.
CRL.RP No. 855 of 2014
12. Further, from the perusal of the rough sketch at
Ex.P-4, it is seen that the accident had not taken place in the
side of the road as alleged by the witnesses. The accident in
question had take place almost on the middle of the road, and
therefore, on the basis of the evidence available on record, it
cannot be said that the petitioner could be held guilty of the
alleged offences. Petitioner can be held guilty of the alleged
offences only in the event the prosecution is able to prove that
he was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner endangering the life of public and had caused the
accident.
13. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view
that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed
by the courts below cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the
following order:
14. The revision petition is allowed. The judgment and
order dated 07.12.2011 passed by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn.) & JMFC, Srirangapatna, in C.C.No.52/2008 and the
judgment and order dated 15.07.2013 passed by the Court of
III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Crl.A.No.4/2012,
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 855 of 2014
are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offences under
Section 279 & 304-A IPC.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
