Sri Shankarappa E Desai vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 1598 Kant

                                      -1-
                                             CRL.RP No. 181 of 2014




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

                                   BEFORE
               THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
               CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 181 OF 2014
            BETWEEN:

               SRI. SHANKARAPPA E.DESAI,
               S/O ERAPPA,
               AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
               R/AT THYAJUVALLI,
               KANAVALLI POST,
               SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 201.
                                                      ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI. PRAKASH M.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

            AND:

               THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
               YESHWANTHPURA TRAFFIC P.S.,
               BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally      HIGH COURT BUILDING,
signed by
GAYATHRI       BANGALORE-01.
PG                                                   ...RESPONDENT
Location:
High        (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
Court of
Karnataka
                  CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
            THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
            PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:22.04.2010
            PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC (SESSIONS)-XI, BANGALORE IN
            CRL.A.NO.945/2009 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
            DATED:23.11.2009 PASSED BY THE MMTC-III, BANGALORE
            CITY IN C.C.NO.5289/2005 BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP.

                 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
            THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               -2-
                                       CRL.RP No. 181 of 2014




                            ORDER

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 of

Cr.P.C. is filed by the sole accused challenging the judgment

and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.11.2009 passed

in CC.No.5289/2005 by the III MMTC, Bangalore and the

judgment and order dated 22.04.2010 passed by the Presiding

Officer, Fast Track Court (Sessions)-XI, Bangalore in Criminal

Appeal No.945/2009.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records

which are necessary for disposal of this criminal revision

petition are:

On 16.11.2005 at about 6.30 p.m. the petitioner who was

driving the lorry bearing registration No.KA-16-A-1941 in a

rash and negligent manner on NH-4 from Bangalore towards

Tumkur dashed against the cyclist namely Mansur at CMTI

junction. As a result, Mansur suffered grievous injuries and

succumbed to the same on his way to the Hospital.

CRL.RP No. 181 of 2014

4. PW.2-Police Constable who was the eye witness to

the accident had lodged the complaint and on the basis of the

same, FIR was registered against the petitioner for offences

punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC and Section 134 (a

& b) r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV

Act) in Cr.No.354/2005 by the Yeshwanthpura Traffic Police

Station. The police after investigation had filed charge sheet

against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

5. Petitioner after receipt of summons had appeared

before the trial Court and claimed to be tried for the aforesaid

offences.

6. The prosecution in order to prove its case had

examined six witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and also got marked five

documents as Exs.P1 to P5. The petitioner/accused during

course of his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement had denied the

incriminating circumstances available against him on record.

However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence, nor

got marked any documents in support of his defence.

7. The trial Court thereafter heard the arguments on

both sides and by its judgment and order dated 23.11.2009

CRL.RP No. 181 of 2014

convicted the petitioner for the alleged offences and sentenced

him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one month for offence punishable

under Section 279 of Cr.P.C. For offence punishable under

Section 304A of IPC, petitioner was sentenced to undergo

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

Rs.5,000/-. For offence punishable under Section 134(a & b)

r/w Section 187 of the MV Act, petitioner was sentenced to pay

fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of 15 days. Being aggrieved by the said judgment

and order of conviction, petitioner filed Criminal Appeal

No.945/2009, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court by

its judgment and order dated 22.04.2010. It is under these

circumstances, petitioner is before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner for the

alleged offences. He submits that the alleged eye witnesses are

all interested witnesses and no reliance can be placed on their

evidence. He also submits that the material on record does not

establish that the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle in

question at the time of the accident and the vehicle in question

CRL.RP No. 181 of 2014

was driven in a rash and negligent manner. He accordingly

prays to allow the revision petition.

9. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the

respondent-State has argued in support of the impugned

judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the

Courts below and submits that the evidence of PWs.2, 4 and 5

clearly establishes the guilt of the petitioner and the evidence

of these witnesses who are eye witnesses to the accident in

question corroborates with each other. She also submits that

the petitioner has been identified by the eye witnesses as the

driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and

having regard to the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts

below against the petitioner, she prays for dismissal of the

revision petition.

10. I have heard the arguments of both sides and also

perused the materials on record.

11. The prosecution in order to prove its case has

examined six witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 before the trial Court.

PW.1 is the Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector and he has

examined the vehicle involved in the accident in question and

CRL.RP No. 181 of 2014

issued report as per Ex.P1 stating that the vehicle did not have

any mechanical defect at the time of accident.

PW.2 is the Police Constable of Yeshwanthpura Traffic

Police Station and he is an eye witness to the accident in

question. He has reiterated the averments made by him in the

complaint and has stated that on 16.11.2005 while he was on

duty at CMTI junction, at around 6.30 p.m. the offending lorry

driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner jumped

the signal and dashed against the deceased who was riding a

cycle and as a result, deceased fell down on the road and front

wheel of the offending lorry ran over his stomach causing

grievous injuries and he succumbed to the said injuries.

Complaint filed by him was marked as Ex.P2.

PW.3 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem of the

deceased.

PW.4 Sharanappa is an eye witness to the accident and

he has also acted as pancha to the spot mahazar. He has

deposed before the trial Court stating that on 16.11.2005 at

about 6.30 p.m. after completing his duty he was standing near

Goraguntepalya signal point and at that point of time the

offending lorry driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent

CRL.RP No. 181 of 2014

manner jumped the signal and dashed against the deceased

who was riding his cycle and caused the accident. He has

stated that as a result of the injuries suffered in the accident,

the cyclist Mansur succumbed to the same. He has also stated

that police had come to the spot and conducted spot mahazar

as per Ex.P5 in his presence and his signature on the same is

also identified by him.

PW.5 is another eye witness to the accident. He has also

stated before trial Court that on 16.11.2005 at about 6.30 p.m.

when he was standing near CMTI signal, the offending lorry

which was driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent

manner jumped the signal and dashed against the cyclist

Mansur who had succumbed to the injuries caused to him in the

accident.

12. Evidence of PWs.2, 4 and 5 corroborates with each

other. The defence has not elicited anything from these eye

witnesses so as to disbelieve the version of these witnesses.

The presence of these witnesses at the spot is quite probable

and it cannot be said that they are chance witnesses or

interested witnesses, as sought to be contended by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. All the eye witnesses have

CRL.RP No. 181 of 2014

consistently stated that the petitioner had jumped the signal

and dashed against the deceased who was riding the cycle.

Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner was driving the

offending lorry at the time of the accident in a rash and

negligent manner. Petitioner has been identified as the driver

of the offending lorry by PWs.4 and 5 who are the eye witness

to the accident and there is no reason to disbelieve the

evidence of these eye witnesses. Deceased Mansur was riding

his cycle from South to North direction after traffic signal was

cleared, whereas, petitioner who was driving the offending lorry

from eastern side to western side had violated the traffic signal

and dashed against the deceased. The spot sketch as per

Ex.P5 read with evidence of PWs.2, 4 and 5 clearly

demonstrates that the petitioner was driving the offending

vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused the

accident resulting in death of the deceased Mansur who was

riding the cycle.

13. The trail Court as well as the Appellate Court after

appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record have

recorded concurrent finding against the petitioner holding him

guilty of the alleged offences and unless the petitioner is in a

CRL.RP No. 181 of 2014

position to demonstrate before this Court that the said

judgment and order passed by the Courts below either suffers

from perversity or illegality, the scope for interference by this

Court in exercise of its revisional power is very narrow.

The impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts

below do not suffer from any perversity or illegality which calls

for interfere by this Court and therefore, I find no merit in this

criminal revision petition and accordingly, the same is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PGG