Sri Revanna Siddappa G Kumbar vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 801 Kant

                                          -1-
                                                     CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                                         BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
               CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1175 OF 2018
            BETWEEN:

            SRI. REVANNA SIDDAPPA G KUMBAR
            AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
            S/O GURUSIDDAPPA KUMABAR,
            DRIVER, T. NO.9539,
            KSRTC, MYSURU DIVISION,
            PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
            SAROORU VILLAGE AT AND POST,
            MUDDEBIHALA TALUK,
            VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-563701.

                                                                   ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI. G.S.NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
                SRI. S.B.MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
            AND:

            THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
            BY VIRAJPET TOWN POLICE STATION,
            VIRAJPET,
            KODAGU DISTRICT-577302.
Digitally
signed by   REP. BY SPP,
SUMA        HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Location:
HIGH        BANGALORE-01.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                                                                  ...RESPONDENT
            (BY SRI. KRISHNA     KUMAR    K.K.,    HIGH   COURT    GOVERNMENT
            PLEADER)



                   THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
            SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
            PRAYING   TO   SET   ASIDE   THE      JUDGMENT   AND    ORDER   OF
                                 -2-
                                              CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018




CONVICTION    AND   SENTENCE        DATED      20.10.2016     PASSED    IN
C.C.NO.191/2009 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
VIRAJPET AND AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 07.09.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERE IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.110/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY PASS AN ORDER OF
ACQUITAL OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.

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

                               ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction

dated 20.10.2016 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Virajpet

(henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in

C.C.No.191/2009, convicting him for the offences punishable

under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and the

consequent sentence. The petitioner has also challenged the

judgment dated 07.09.2018 passed by the I Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri (henceforth referred to as

'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A.No.110/2017 by which, the

judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the

Trial Court was upheld.

CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018

2. The petitioner herein was charged for the offences

punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. The

prosecution claimed that on 08.11.2008, the petitioner was

driving a bus bearing registration No.KA-09-F-3824 in a rash

and negligent manner on Siddapur - Virajpet road and when it

reached the Environment Education Centre gate at Maggula

village, the bus dashed against a car bearing registration

No.KA-45-M-468 approaching from the opposite direction. As a

result, the driver of the car suffered serious injuries and died at

the spot. The other three passengers in the car were also

seriously injured and were shifted to the local Government

hospital and thereafter, were shifted to Vikram Hospital,

Mysuru. An inquest mahazar was drawn and a spot mahazar

was also drawn. A post-mortem was done, which revealed that

the deceased suffered fatal injuries as a result of the accident.

A sketch of the spot of the accident was also drawn as per

Ex.P10 and P18. The vehicles in question were examined by

the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who submitted his report that the

accident was not due to any mechanical failure of the vehicles.

The investigating officer recorded the statement of the

CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018

witnesses. Based on these, a charge-sheet was filed by the

prosecution for the offences punishable under the aforesaid

Sections. The Trial Court took cognizance and issued summons

to the petitioner in C.C.No.191/2009. The petitioner pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 3 who were the injured victims and who were

travelling in the car and examined PW.4 to PW.27 and marked

Exs.P1 to P31. The statement of the petitioner under Section

313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and he denied all the incriminating

evidence against him. He lead his defense evidence as DW.1

and marked Exs.D1 and D2.

3. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the

Trial Court held that the prosecution had proved the spot

mahazar as well as the sketch. It also held that the evidence of

PW.1 to PW.3 demonstrated beyond doubt that the petitioner

was negligent and was rash and negligent in driving the bus

and in causing the accident, resulting in the death of the driver

of the car. The Trial Court found that there were no unearthly

circumstances to establish that the accident occurred not due

to the negligence on the part of the petitioner. The Trial Court

CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018

noticed from Ex.P10 and P18 that the petitioner had driven the

bus at a very speed and had dashed against the car that was

approaching from the opposite direction. It noticed from the

photographs as well as from the report of the IMV Inspector

that the bus driven by the petitioner was at a high speed. It

therefore, convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable

under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC and sentenced him

to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay

fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of

IPC, simple imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of

Rs.250/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC,

simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of

Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC

and simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of

IPC.

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction

and the order of sentence, the petitioner filed

Crl.A.No.110/2017. The Appellate Court framed points for

consideration and after perusing the records of the Trial Court

CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018

and judgment of conviction of the Trial Court and the order of

sentence, dismissed the appeal in terms of the judgment dated

07.09.2018.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner has

filed this revision petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the Ex.P10 and P18 are two sketches of spot that were

prepared and both these sketches differed and therefore, the

Trial Court committed an error in relying upon the sketches at

Exs.P10 and P18. He further contended that the petitioner was

an experienced driver which is evident from the evidence of

DW.1 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be accused of rash

and negligent driving. He also contended that there was a

pothole in the road and to avoid the pothole, the petitioner

maneuvered the bus and since the driver of the car was driving

it at a very high speed, it collided against the bus. He

therefore, contended that there was no negligence on the part

of the petitioner, but it was an accident which was beyond the

control of the petitioner. The learned counsel further contended

CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018

that the sketches at Exs.P10 and P18 would indicate that the

asphalted road was hardly 5.30 meters and it curved towards

the southern side. He submitted that the petitioner was

entering from the southern side towards north while the driver

of the car was moving from north to the south and therefore,

there was a possibility of the driver of the car not seeing the

oncoming bus. He therefore, submitted that the accident was

not due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner but was

solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased.

7. The learned High Court Government Pleader, on the

other hand, submitted that PW.13 supported the spot mahazar.

The IMV report at Ex.P12 and the photographs at Exs.P19 to

P25 demonstrated that the driver of the bus had moved on to

the right side lane dashed against the car killing its driver. He

submitted that Ex.P10 and P18 disclosed that the petitioner

drove the bus in such a rash and negligent manner, that the

car was veered off the main road was found almost 3.90

meters beyond the tar road i.e. beyond the drain and over the

silt trap. He therefore, submitted that the accident occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. He

CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018

invited the attention of the Court to the evidence of DW.1,

where he stated that when he was turning the bus at the curve,

the driver of the car dashed against the bus and that the

petitioner applied brake and both the vehicles were thrown on

to the mud road. He also contended that there were no brake

marks on the road and therefore, the petitioner was guilty of

negligence and was responsible for the accident. The petitioner

claimed that the steering wheel of the bus had jammed and

therefore, he could not move the bus. The learned High Court

Government Pleader contended that the defense of the

petitioner was an afterthought in as much as the Motor Vehicle

Inspector in Ex.P12 had not indicated that the steering wheel of

the bus had jammed. The learned High Court Government

Pleader submitted that the petitioner was driving the bus on

this route from the year 2007 and therefore had experience of

nearly four years in driving between Hunasur and Virajpet.

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

CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018

perused the records of the Trial Court, its judgment as well as

the judgment of the Appellate Court.

9. This Court did not find any patent illegality in the

procedure adopted by the Trial Court while conducting the trial

in the case. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to

conduct the case and also to lead his evidence in defense. The

Appellate Court has also framed points for consideration for

disposal of the appeal and had given adequate opportunities to

the petitioner to represent his case. Therefore, there is no error

in the procedure adopted by the Courts in considering the case.

10. Now reverting back to the question whether the

accident in question occurred due to the negligence on the part

of the petitioner or not, PW.1 to PW.3 were the injured victims,

who were travelling in the car. They have supported the

prosecution and have deposed that it was the petitioner who

was negligent and who caused the accident. PW.13 was the

witness in whose presence a spot mahazar was drawn and he

also supported the case of the prosecution. PW.18 and PW.19

were the superiors of the petitioner, who deposed that it was

- 10 -

CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018

the petitioner who was driving the bus on the date of the

accident. The Motor Vehicle Inspector (PW.26) reported that

the accident in question was not due to any mechanical defects.

The photographs of the two vehicles that were captured at the

time of the spot mahazar disclose that the bus driven by the

petitioner had travelled beyond the right side lane and pushed

the car on to the kaccha road. This demonstrably indicate that

the petitioner drove the bus at a very high speed and when he

was maneuvering the curve, he could not control the bus and

thus dashed against the car driven by the deceased. The sketch

of the scene of accident at Ex.P10 and the sketch of the

accident (Ex.P18) prepared by the prosecution correspond with

each other and shows that the asphalted road was 16 feet wide

and curved towards Virajpet. These two sketches disclose that

the bus driven by the petitioner dashed against the car and

jettisoned the car beyond the right side lane and on to the mud

road. The petitioner was admittedly an experienced driver who

was driving the bus on the same route for four years. He was

therefore, expected to be aware of the road and the moving

traffic that too, in the morning hours. The petitioner must have

- 11 -

CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018

exercised due care and caution while driving a heavy passenger

vehicle on a 18 feet wide road. The way in which the accident

has occurred and the oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3

demonstrate that it was the petitioner who was negligent and

was responsible for the accident. The Trial Court after

considering these material evidence has rightly convicted the

petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337,

338 and 304A of IPC. The Trial Court had sentenced the

petitioner to a fleabite punishment though the petitioner

deserved to be dealt harshly. The Appellate Court has also

considered the facts of the case with all alacrity and has rightly

upheld the conviction as well as the sentence. There is no error

committed by both the Courts warranting interference by this

Court.

Hence, this revision petition lacks merit and the same is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PMR