Narasimhaiah vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 1535 Kant

                                             -1-

                                                      CRL.RP No. 308 of 2014



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                       DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                          BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                                 CRL.R.P. NO. 308 OF 2014
                BETWEEN:
                NARASIMHAIAH
                S/O RANGAPPA
                AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
                R/O CHIKKABETTAHALLI VILLAGE
                YALAHANAKA HOBLI
                BANGALORE - 560 063.
                                                                ...PETITIONER
                (BY SRI RAMAKRISHNA, AMICUS CURIAE)
                AND:
                STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally       BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
signed by B A
KRISHNA         PEENYA TRAFFIC POLICE STATION
KUMAR
                BANGALORE, REP. BY. S.P.P.
Location:
High Court of   HIGH COURT BUILDING
Karnataka
                BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                                               ...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 OF CONVICTION AND
                SENTENCES    PASSED     BY   THE   MMTC-III,  BANGALORE    IN
                C.C.NO.335/2008, DATED:27.11.10 AND THE JUDGMENT IN
                CRL.A.NO.893/10 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC-VIII, BANGALORE,
                DATED:9.4.14 BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP.

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

                                          ORDER

This criminal revision petition is filed by the accused

challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence

dated 27.11.2010 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate,

CRL.RP No. 308 of 2014

Traffic Court-III, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.335/2008 and the

judgment and order dated 09.04.2014 passed by the Fast Track

Court No.VIII, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.893/2010.

2. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the

petitioner and also the learned HCGP on behalf of 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, PW-1 - Chikkaramaiah had lodged a complaint

before the police on 14.07.2007 at 7.15 a.m. stating that at

about 6.15 a.m., when he was returning from duty in Bata

India Company, one B.N.Ramesh who was his co-employee

came in his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02-EY-4158

from Brindavan side to attend duty and at that time, the BMTC

bus bearing registration No.KA-05-B-5448 which was driven by

the petitioner came from the opposite direction in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle and as a

result Ramesh fell down and sustained grievous injuries.

Immediately, he was shifted to the hospital. On the basis of the

said complaint, the police had registered a case in Crime

No.230/2007 against the petitioner herein for the offences

CRL.RP No. 308 of 2014

punishable under Sections 279 & 337 IPC. Subsequently, the

injured B.N.Ramesh had succumbed to the injuries in the

hospital, and therefore, Section 304-A IPC was also invoked

against the petitioner and the police after investigation had

filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences under

Sections 279 & 304-A IPC.

4. The petitioner who had appeared before the Trial Court

claimed to be tried, and therefore, the prosecution in order to

prove its case had examined 12 witnesses as PWs-1 to 12 and

also got marked 12 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-12. The

incriminating circumstances available against the petitioner was

denied by him during the course of his statement under Section

313 Cr.PC. However, he did not choose to lead any defence

evidence nor was any document marked in support of his

defence. The Trial Court heard the arguments on both sides

and by its judgment and order dated 27.11.2010 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 and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under

Section 304-A IPC and for the offence under Section 279 IPC,

petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to

CRL.RP No. 308 of 2014

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days. Being

aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, the

petitioner had filed Crl.A.No.893/2010 before the Appellate

Court, which was dismissed on 09.04.2014. It is in this factual

background, the petitioner is before this Court in this revision

petition.

5. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that the eye-witnesses

to the incident are all interested witnesses, and therefore, the

courts below could not have placed reliance on their evidence.

He submits that independent witnesses have not been

examined by the prosecution which gives rise to a serious

doubt with regard to the genuineness of the complaint

averments. He submits that there is discrepancy in Ex.P-5 -

spot mahazar and Ex.P-6 - spot sketch which is prepared by

PW-6 and this would be fatal to the case of the prosecution. He,

accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that the evidence of

PWs-1 to 3 who are the eye-witnesses clearly establishes the

guilt of the petitioner and PW-11 who has been examined on

behalf of the petitioner's employer, has stated that the

petitioner was on duty on the date of accident and he was

CRL.RP No. 308 of 2014

driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident, and

therefore, the courts below were fully justified in convicting the

petitioner for the alleged offences, and accordingly, prays to

dismiss the revision petition.

7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed

on both sides and also perused the material available on

record.

8. The prosecution in order to prove its case that the

petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and

negligent manner and had dashed against motor cycle of

deceased Ramesh which had resulted in his death, has mainly

relied upon the evidence of PWs-1 to 3. PW-1 who is the

complainant has reiterated his averments made in the

complaint during the course of his deposition before the Trial

Court. He has stated that at about 6.15 a.m., when he was in

front of Abhimani Prakashana and having tea, he saw the

deceased coming in a motor cycle and at that time, the

offending bus which was driven in a rash and negligent manner

by the petitioner herein had dashed against the motor cycle

and caused the accident, as a result, the deceased had

sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately shifted to

CRL.RP No. 308 of 2014

M.S.Ramaiah Hospital in a ambulance belonging to Bata

Company. Thereafter, within a period of one hour, he had

lodged a complaint, on the basis of which, FIR was registered

against the petitioner. He has also deposed that between 8 to 9

a.m. on the very same day, the police had come to the spot

and spot mahazar was conducted. He has also stated that on

the same date, Ramesh had succumbed to the injuries

sustained in the said accident. He has stated that he was

standing in front of Abhimani Prakashana after completing his

duty and deceased was coming in his motor cycle for attending

the duty in the very same company where PW-1 was employed.

Therefore, the presence of PW-1 in the said locality cannot be

doubted.

9. PWs-2 & 3 are also eye-witnesses to the accident and

even they are co-employers of PW-1 and the deceased. The

said witnesses have also spoken consistently and their evidence

corroborates with the evidence of PW-1. During the course of

their cross-examination, the defence has failed to elicit

anything from them so as to disbelieve their version. PWs-2 & 3

were also on their way home after finishing their duty, and

therefore, their presence at the spot cannot be disputed.

CRL.RP No. 308 of 2014

Merely, for the reason that PWs-1 to 3 are the co-workers of

the deceased, it cannot be said that they are interested

witnesses and their evidence cannot be relied upon by the

prosecution. Undisputedly, the accident has taken place outside

the Bata Company and PWs-1 to 3 have stated that they had

come out after finishing their duty, whereas deceased was on

his way to attend the duty. Therefore, the presence of PWs-1 to

3 near the spot is quite natural and probable.

10. PW-5 - Ramegowda has issued the IMV report -

Ex.P-3 and has stated that the accident in question had not

taken place due to any mechanical failure of the vehicles. PW-6

is the doctor who had initially treated Ramesh. PW-7 is the

doctor who had conducted the postmortem and issued the

postmortem report. PW-11 is the officer of the petitioner's

employer - BMTC and he has stated before the court that the

petitioner was the driver of the vehicle in question as on the

date of accident.

11. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court having

appreciated all these aspects of the matter have rightly

convicted the petitioner for the alleged offences as the

prosecution has successfully proved that the petitioner was the

CRL.RP No. 308 of 2014

driver of the vehicle in question as on the date of accident and

he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner

which is established by the evidence of PWs-1 to 3. The courts

below have recorded a concurrent finding of guilt against the

petitioner for the alleged offences and unless the petitioner is

able to point out to this Court that the said finding of the courts

below is either perverse or illegal, this Court in exercise of its

revisional jurisdictional cannot interfere with the said findings.

The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by

the courts below are just and sound and it does not call for any

interference by this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is

dismissed.

12. The services of learned Counsel Sri A.V.Ramakrishna

as Amicus Curiae is appreciated and his fee is fixed at

Rs.10,000/-.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KK