Karnataka High Court
Sri. K. Hanumanthappa vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2023
Bench: R. Nataraj
-1-
CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1215 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI. K. HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O. LATE KAMPALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SOLLAPURA VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA TALUK,
PIN-577 520.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.VIJAY SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY CHITRADURGA,
TRAFFIC POLICE STATION,
CHITRADURGA-515 281.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
Digitally signed PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
by SUMA
Location: OF THE APPEAL IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.27/2018 DATED
HIGH COURT
OF 04.10.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
KARNATAKA
SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND
C.J.M, CHITRADURGA IN C.C.NO.19/2016 DATED 26.05.2018 FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 338 AND 304A
OF IPC READ WITH SECTION 187 OF IMV ACT AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2018
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this revision petition challenging
the correctness of the judgment of conviction and the order of
sentence dated 26.05.2018 convicting the petitioner for the
offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC
R/w Section 187 of IMV Act and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for
the offence punishable under Section 279 and a sum of
Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 and a
sum of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
304(A) and Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section
187 of the IMV Act. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the
judgment passed by the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.27/2018, by
which, the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court was
upheld.
2. The petitioner was tried for the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC R/w Section 187 of
the IMV Act. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried. The prosecution examined the injured victim as PW-1
and an eye witness was examined as PW-4 and the
investigating Officer was examined as PW-6. The owner of the
offending vehicle was examined as PW-9 and exhibits P1 to P21
CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2018
were marked. The sworn statement of the petitioner was
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC. The petitioner did not
lead any defense evidence. Based on oral and documentary
evidence, the trial Court held that the prosecution had proved
beyond doubt that the petitioner was guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC R/w
Section 187 of IMV Act and convicted him for the offences as
aforesaid. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the Sessions
Court in Crl.A.No.27/2018 was dismissed.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, this revision petition
is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the trial Court failed to notice that PW-1 deposed that on
the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle ran
away and that she had not seen the driver. He therefore
submitted that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to
conduct a Test identification to identify the petitioner as the
person who was driving the offending vehicle on the date of the
accident. He further contended that none of the prosecution
witnesses had identified him as the person who was driving the
CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2018
vehicle as on the date of the accident and therefore the
prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner
beyond doubt. He further contended that PW-4 was the eye
witness who deposed that he had not seen the driver on the
date of the accident and that he saw him before the police
station for the first time and before the Court for the second
time. He further contended that PW-9 who was the owner of
the vehicle did not specifically mention that it was the accused
who was driving the vehicle as on the date of the accident and
therefore, there was a doubt whether the accused was the
person who was driving the vehicle as on the date of the
accident. He further contended that PW-1 deposed that the
vehicle was not carrying a registration number while PW-9 who
was the Investigating Officer deposed that the vehicle did carry
a registration number and therefore, there was a doubt
regarding the involvement of the tractor in question. He
therefore submitted that, the trial Court as well as the
Appellate Court failed to consider that the prosecution had
failed to establish that the petitioner was responsible for the
accident. He therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment of
CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2018
conviction passed by the trial Court and which was upheld by
the Appellate Court may be set aside.
5. Per contra the learned High Court Government
Pleader submitted that there was no irregularity in the
procedure adopted by the trial Court while disposing of the
case. On facts, he contended that PW-1 was the injured victim
who deposed about the manner of the accident which
demonstrated beyond doubt that the accident was due to
negligence of the driver of the tractor. He further contended
that PW-9 who was the owner of the tractor did not dispute
that in her statement under Section 161 of CR.PC was
recorded. He took the Court to Ex.P21 which was the statement
under Section 161 of CR.PC and contended that PW-9 had
disclosed the particulars of the person who was driving the
tractor on the fateful day. He therefore contended that PW-9
specifically stated in her statement that it was the petitioner
who was driving the vehicle on the fateful day and therefore,
there was no doubt that the petitioner was the person who was
driving the vehicle on the date of the accident. Further, he
contended that PW-6 who was the Investigating Officer
CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2018
deposed that the petitioner was produced by PW-9 before him,
pursuant to a notice issued to PW-9 and that the arrest
procedure was conducted by PW-9 in the police station. He also
pointed out that no suggestions were made to PW-9 about the
non-involvement of the petitioner in the accident or that he was
not driving the offending vehicle on the date of the accident.
Therefore, he submitted that was nothing amiss in the case of
the prosecution that the petitioner was negligent and was
responsible for the accident and therefore the trial Court and
the Appellate Court were justified in convicting the petitioner
for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and
304(A) of IPC R/w Section 187 of IMV Act.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High
Court Government Pleader.
7. Exhibit P1 was the complaint which was recorded by
PW-5 in the hospital and said complaint was identified by PW-1
and the same was marked as Ex.P1. The complaint discloses
that on 04.09.2015 when PW-1 and her uncle were riding on a
motor cycle on the service road abutting the national high way
CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2018
No.4, near KEB Kalyana Mantapa, Chitradurga, a tractor
entered the service road from the high way and dashed against
the motor cycle. She also stated in her complaint that the
driver of the tractor fled from the scene of the accident. Ex.P2
was the spot mahazar and Ex.P3 was the scene of the accident
which discloses that the tractor was moving from the high way
in to the service road and dashed against the motor cycle. The
motor cycle is found on the left lane of the service road and the
accident seems to have been occurred at the mouth of the
opening of the service road. PW-4 was the eye witness who
deposed that he was standing near Mandar bar. At about
3.30 p.m. the tractor which entered the service road dashed
against the motor cycle and that the rider of the motor cycle
was caught in the mud guard of the tractor while the pillion
rider (PW-1) fell from the motor cycle and suffered injuries. He
deposed that the driver of the tractor was responsible for the
accident but claimed that he did not see the driver of the
tractor. However, he was treated as hostile since he deposed
that his signatures at Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 were obtained at the
police station. The prosecution cross-examined him and it was
extracted in the course of cross examination that he was
CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2018
present at the time of the mahazar on 05.09.2015 he also
admitted two other witnesses (PW-2 & PW-3) were present at
the time of the mahazar. He was also found in the photographs
at Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 that were taken at the spot of the accident.
He also admitted the two vehicles were seized in his presence
and a mahazar was drawn. He identified the petitioner at the
police station but claimed that he was not aware as to who was
the driver of the tractor on the date of the accident. He
categorically stated before the Police that he had stated in his
statement under Section 161 of CR.PC, that he would identify
the driver of the offending vehicle if he saw him again. In his
further cross examination by the petitioner/accused he stated
that he had seen the petitioner twice. PW-9 was the owner of
the offending vehicle who did not dispute that her statement
under Section 161 of CR.PC was recorded by the Police and the
same was marked as Ex.P21. The relevant portion of Ex.P21
reads as follows:
"£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÉÆA¢UÉ
ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £ÀªÀÄä ºÉÆ®ªÀÄ£É PÉ®¸À ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀéAvÀ
G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀPÁÌV FUÉÎ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ »AzÉ
eÁ£ï rÃgï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ £ÀA: PÉJ 16-n© -0390 £ÉÃ
mÁæPÀÖgï EAf£À£ÀÄß Rjâ¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ªÁºÀ£ÀPÉÌ FUÉÎ
CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2018
¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 03 wAUÀ¼ÀÄUÀ½AzÀ ZÁ®PÀ£À£ÁßV avÀæzÀÄUÀð
vÁ®ÆèPï ¸ÉÆGÁè¥ÀÄgÀzÀ ªÁ¹ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥Àà vÀAzÉ PÀA¥À¼À¥Àà
¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 47 ªÀµÀð, £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ, JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß
£ÉëĹPÉÆArzÉÝ£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 04/09/2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ
£À£Àß ¨Á§ÄÛ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ mÁæPÀÖgÀ EAf£ï UÉ mÁ¥ï
PÀnÖ¹PÉƼÀî®Ä Hj¤AzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ EAf£ï£ÀÄß ZÁ®PÀ
ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥Àà£ÀÄ avÀæzÀÄUÀðPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ avÀæzÀÄUÀð
£ÀUÀgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃzɺÀ½î gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è mÁ¥ï PÀnÖ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÁ¥Á¸ÀÄ
HjUÉ §gÀ®Ä, ¸ÀzÀj ¢ªÀ¸À ¢£ÁAPÀ 04/09/2015
gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß 3.00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è mÁæöåPÀÖgï
EAf£ï £ÀÄß avÀæzÀÄUÀð £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ªÀÄAzÁgÀ ¨Ágï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
gɸÉÆÖÃgÉAmï ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ zÁªÀtUÉÃgÉ PÀqɬÄAzÀ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ PÀqÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ J£ï.ºÉZï-4 ¸À«ð¸ï
gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è CwªÉÃUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvɬÄAzÀ £ÀqɹPÉÆAqÀÄ
JzÀÄj£À°è §gÀÄwÛzÀÝ £ÀA:PÉJ-16-JPïì-9166 £ÉÃ
ªÉÆÃmÁgï ¸ÉÊPÀGïUÉ rQ̺ÉÆqɹzÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj
ªÉÆÃmÁgï ¸ÉÊPÀGï ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ PɼÀUÉ ©zÀÝ PÀjAiÀÄ¥Àà vÀAzÉ
¥ÁAqÀÄgÀAUÀ¥Àà JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀ PÀÄwÛUÉ ªÉÄÊ, PÉÊUÉ wêÀæªÁzÀ
¥ÉlÄÖUÀ¼ÀÄ ©zÀÄÝ avÀæzÀÄUÀð fGÁè D¸ÉÛçAiÀÄ°è aQvÉì
¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÁUÉÎ aQvÉì ¥sÀ®PÁjAiÀiÁUÀzÉà ¸ÀzÀj ¢ªÀ¸À
ªÀÄzÁåºÀß 3.30 ¦JA £À°è ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉAvÀ ºÁUÀÆ
¸ÀzÀj ªÉÆÃmÁgï ¸ÉÊPÀGï »A§¢AiÀÄ°è PÀĽwzÀÝ «ÃuÁ
JA§ÄªÀªÀjUÉ ¥ÉlÄÖUÀ¼ÀÄ ©zÀÄÝ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ F §UÉÎ
¸ÀAZÁj ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ ªÉÆ.£ÀA.131/2015 PÀ®A.279,
337, 304(J) L¦¹ gÉ/« 187 LJA« DPïÖ jÃvÁå
¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁRGÁVzÀÄÝ, F §UÉÎ ¸ÀzÀj ªÁºÀ£ÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀ
zÁRGÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ZÁ®PÀ£À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸À®Ä
avÀæzÀÄUÀð ¸ÀAZÁj ¥ÉưøÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¤ÃrzÀ £ÉÆÃnøï£ÀÄß
¹éÃPÀj¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2018
F ¢ªÀ¸À ªÉÄîÌAqÀ £À£Àß ¨Á§ÄÛ £ÀA:PÉJ-16-n©-
0390 £Éà mÁæöåPÀÖgï EAf£ï ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ GÁjAiÀÄ vÁAwæPÀ
¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀj ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ PÁUÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹, EArªÀÄßn ¨ÁAqÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ
µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ £À£Àß ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ
µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ½UÀ£ÀĸÁgÀªÁV £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ."
8. PW.6 was the Investigating Officer who deposed as
follows:
"¢£ÁAPÀ 09.09.2015 gÀAzÀÄ ZÁ¸Á-11 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä
mÁæPÀÖgÀ ZÁ®PÀ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥Àà£À£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀÄAzÉ
ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ ZÁ¸Á-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÁ¸Á-7 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß
oÁuÉUÉ PÀgɹ CªÀgÀÄ ZÁ®PÀ£À£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀ §½PÀ DvÀ£À£ÀÄß
zÀ¸ÀÛVj ªÀiÁr oÁuÉUÉ PÀgɹ CªÀgÀÄ ZÁ®PÀ£À£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀ
§½PÀ DvÀ£À£ÀÄß zÀ¸ÀÛVj ªÀiÁr oÁuÁ eÁ«Ää£À ªÉÄÃGÉ
©mÉÖ£ÀÄ. CzÉà ¢£À ¤¦-8 ±ÀªÀ ¥ÀjÃPÁë ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
9. The fact that the vehicle was involved in the
accident on 04.09.2015 is evident from Ex.P14 which was the
indemnity bond furnished by PW-9 for release of the tractor.
The question therefore which remains outstanding is whether
the petitioner was involved in the offence and whether
sufficient evidence is available on record to establish that he
was the one who had caused the accident on 04.09.2015. The
fact that PW-6 had issued a notice to PW-a to produce the
- 11 -
CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2018
driver of the tractor who drove the tractor on 04.09.2015, is
not seriously disputed. PW-6 was the person who caused the
arrest of the petitioner. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the
petitioner to establish that there was any fault in the arrest of
the petitioner by PW-6. The petitioner has also not raised any
alibi that he was elsewhere and not present at the scene of the
accident on 04.09.2015. In that view of the matter, the Trial
Court and the Appellate Court have rightly held that the
petitioner was the person who was driving the tractor on the
fateful day and was responsible for the accident.
10. Ex.P3 is the sketch and the scene of the accident
indicates that the petitioner was negligent in driving the tractor
while entering the service road from the national high way. The
petitioner was seated at a higher position on the tractor and
therefore had a better view of the traffic moving on the service
road and therefore was required to exercise due diligence in
quashing while entering the service road from the high way.
The evidence on record namely the deposition of PW-1 and
PW-4 on doubt that it was the petitioner who was negligent and
was responsible for the accident. There is no error committed
- 12 -
CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2018
by the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court in convicting
the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279,
338 and 304(A) of IPC R/w 187 of IMV Act.
Hence, this revision petition lacks merit and the same is
hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PK
