Karnataka High Court
Sri Chandrashekara D. P vs State Of Karnataka on 10 January, 2023
Bench: R. Nataraj
-1-
CRL.RP No. 1163 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1163 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA D.P.
S/O PUTTASOMACHAAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/OF DODDAKURUBARAHALLI,
JYOTHINAGARA POST,
CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.D. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BELUR P.S., BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
SUMA
Location: PLEADER)
HIGH COURT
OF THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
KARNATAKA SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION PASSED
IN C.C.NO.2502/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR
DIVISION AND JMFC AT BELUR, DATED 18.10.2016, AND THE SAME
BEING CONFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE COURT IN
CRL.A.NO.226/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN DATED 06.08.2018.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.RP No. 1163 of 2018
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction
dated 18.10.2016 passed by the JMFC, Belur (henceforth
referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in C.C.No.2502/2015
convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 279,
337, 338, 304A of IPC and the order of sentence, by which he
was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and undergo rigorous
imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under
Section 279 IPC ; fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment
of three months for the offence punishable under Section 337
of IPC ; fine of Rs.1,000/- and rigorous imprisonment of six
months for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC
and fine of Rs.5,000/- and two years rigorous imprisonment for
the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. The
petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated 06.08.2018
passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hassan
(henceforth referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in
Crl.A.No.226/2016, by which the judgment of conviction passed
by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section
304A of IPC was upheld and the order of default sentence for
CRL.RP No. 1163 of 2018
the offence under Section 304A of IPC was modified and the
accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. The record discloses that on 27.07.2015, the
petitioner was driving a lorry bearing registration No.KA-18-
7707 on Belur - Chikkamagaluru road. At about 6.00 a.m.,
when he reached Kannayakanahalli, he dashed against a
Tempo Traveller bearing registration No.KA-13-A-6845 causing
the death of four passengers in the Tempo Traveller and other
injuries to other passengers. A report of the incident was filed
by CW.1 on 27.07.2015. Based on this, the jurisdictional police
took up investigation and filed a final report accusing the
petitioner of commission of offences punishable under Sections
279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. The Trial Court took
cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the
petitioner. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and prayed that he
be tried. The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.14 and marked
Exs.P1 to P28. The statement of the petitioner was recorded
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating
CRL.RP No. 1163 of 2018
evidence adduced against him. However, he did not lead any
evidence in defence.
3. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the
Trial Court held that the petitioner was negligent and had
caused the accident resulting in death of four passengers in the
Tempo Traveller and other injuries to the other passengers. It
also held that the petitioner was guilty of other offences alleged
against him and convicted him for the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. It sentenced
the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months
and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
279 of IPC; rigorous imprisonment of three months and fine of
Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC;
rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- for
the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and rigorous
imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. It imposed a
default imprisonment of three months in the event of failing to
pay the fine of Rs.5,000/-.
CRL.RP No. 1163 of 2018
4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of
conviction, the petitioner filed a Crl.A.No.226/2016 before the
Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, but
modified the default sentence in respect of the offence under
Section 304A of IPC and reduced it to six months treating as if
the default sentence ordered by the Trial Court was ten
months.
5. Being aggrieved by the above, the present revision
petition is filed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the attempts of the
petitioner to avert the accident, which was evident from the
spot mahazar at Ex.P23. He submitted that the spot mahazar
showed that the petitioner had slammed the brake of the lorry
but it swerved to the right lane and dashed against the Tempo
Traveller. He submitted that the driver of the Tempo Traveller
did not exercise diligence in averting the accident by applying
brake. He claimed that the Tempo Traveller began its journey
at Bengaluru at 12.00 midnight on 26.07.2015 while the
CRL.RP No. 1163 of 2018
accident in question occurred on 27.07.2015 at 6.00 a.m. in
the morning. He therefore, submitted that it was possible that
the driver of the Tempo Traveller was not fully alert and
therefore, could not avert the accident. He further contended
that neither PW.1 nor PWs.2, 3, 4 and 5 had seen the accident
and therefore, they were not competent witnesses to speak
about the negligence on the part of the petitioner. He
submitted that PW.6, PW.8 and PW.14 who were eye-
witnesses, turned hostile. The mahazar witnesses, PW.9 and
PW.10 also turned hostile and therefore, the prosecution had
failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond doubt. The
learned counsel therefore, contended that the Trial Court as
well as the Appellate Court failed to appreciate these
fundamental facts, which marred the case of the prosecution.
7. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner
was apprehended at the spot of the accident. He contended
that the spot mahazar at Ex.P23 clearly indicated that it was
the petitioner, who crossed over to the right lane and dashed
against the Tempo Traveller, which was moving on the left lane
CRL.RP No. 1163 of 2018
correctly. He contended that the driver of the Tempo Traveller
did not have an inkling that the petitioner would cross over to
the right lane and cause the accident and therefore, he did not
apply the brake. Further, he contended that the report of the
Motor Vehicle Inspector (Ex.P29) showed that the right side of
the Tempo Traveller was smashed and the right side of the
lorry driven by the petitioner was damaged. He invited the
attention of the Court to Ex.P25, which are the photographs of
the lorry as well as the Tempo Traveller which were involved in
the accident and contended that the right side of the Tempo
Traveller was completely destroyed, thereby indicating that the
accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the
petitioner. Further, he contended that the petitioner claimed
that he attempted to avoid a ditch in the road by applying
brake and that the vehicle pulled away on to the right lane.
The learned High Court Government Pleader contended that
there was no ditch in the road as contended by the petitioner
and there were no curves or bends in the road. He therefore,
contended that the petitioner was negligent and was
responsible for the accident. He further contended that four
CRL.RP No. 1163 of 2018
persons were dead in the accident and many were injured in
the accident and therefore, the sentence of two years rigorous
imprisonment ordered by the Trial Court for the offence under
Section 304A of IPC was just and proper. He also contended
that there was no error in the procedure adopted by the Trial
Court in the trial of the offence and the Trial Court had rightly
assessed the evidence and held that the petitioner was guilty of
the offences and therefore, had rightly convicted him. He
therefore, prayed that this revision petition be dismissed.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High
Court Government Pleader for the respondent. I have also
perused the records of the Trial Court and the judgments of the
Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
9. The fact that there was a head on collision between
the vehicle driven by the petitioner and the Tempo Traveller
driven from the opposite direction is not in dispute. It is also
not seriously disputed that the petitioner was the one who was
driving the lorry at the time of the accident. The petitioner
CRL.RP No. 1163 of 2018
claimed that in order to avoid a ditch in the road, he applied
brake suddenly and the vehicle strayed onto the right side lane
and dashed against the Tempo Traveller. This suggestion by
the petitioner establishes the fact that the petitioner was
driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The
Motor Vehicle inspection Report at Ex.P29 indicates that the
accident was not due to any mechanical defects of both the
vehicles and that the brake systems of both the vehicles were
in order. Even in the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,
the petitioner did not set out his defence but merely denied the
incriminating evidence against him. Ex.P23 was the spot
mahazar, which showed that the road at the spot of the
accident was straight and there were no ditches or potholes. It
also demonstrates that the petitioner had applied brakes and
had strayed into the right side lane causing the accident. The
spot mahazar was proved by PW.10. The evidence of PW.1 to
PW.5 coupled with the evidence of PW.10 and PW.11 and the
spot sketch at Ex.P23 as well as the photographs of the
vehicles in question at Ex.P25 prove beyond doubt that the
accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 1163 of 2018
petitioner. The brake marks on the road only indicate the speed
at which the vehicle was driven and despite applying brakes,
the lorry driven by the petitioner could not be controlled but
rammed into the oncoming Tempo Traveller resulting in the
death of four persons travelling in the Tempo Traveller and
serious injuries to the other passengers.
10. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by
the Trial Court that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the
accused/petitioner beyond doubt is unexceptionable. There are
no evident procedural errors in the trial of the case resulting in
prejudice to the petitioner. The Trial Court as well as the
Appellate Court have considered the evidence in great detail
and have rightly arrived at the decision that the petitioner was
guilty of the offence.
11. Now coming to the question whether the sentence
of imprisonment of two years awarded by the Trial Court for the
offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC is just and
proper, the negligent driving of the petitioner has resulted in
death of four passengers travelling in the Tempo Traveller and
- 11 -
CRL.RP No. 1163 of 2018
other injuries to the other passengers. In so far as the order of
sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337
and 338 of IPC, they too are justified and do not call for
interference. Consequently, the order of sentence passed by
the Trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court do not
deserve any interference by this Court.
Hence, this revision petition lacks merit and the same is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMR
