Karnataka High Court
Sri B M Balaji vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2023
Bench: S Rachaiah
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:19462
CRL.RP No. 542 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 542 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. B M BALAJI
S/O MALLESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NO.10, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND
BEERUR, KADUR TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H R ANANTHAKRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTD. BY SPP
BELTHANGADY POLICE STATION
Digitally signed MANGALORE - 574 201.
by SUSHMA
LAKSHMI B S
...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)
KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
BELTHNGADY IN C.C.NO.555/2005 DATED 27.10.2010 AND
THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED 1ST ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DK, MANGALORE IN
CRL.A.NO.165/2010 DATED 01.04.2015 AND ACQUIT THE
ACCUSED, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:19462
CRL.RP No. 542 of 2015
ORDER
1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 27.10.2010 in
C.C.No.555/2005 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge and
JMFC, Belthangady and its confirmation judgment and order
dated 01.04.2015 in Crl.A.No.165/2010 on the file of the Court
of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, DK, Mangalore, has
filed this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent
findings recorded by the Courts below.
2. The petitioner is the accused before the Trial Court
and appellant before the Appellate Court.
Brief facts of the case are:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that, on
11.04.2005, PW.1 and his family members were proceeding to
Dharmastala. At about 5.00 a.m. on 12.04.2005, the petitioner
herein was driving the Maruti Omni vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner so as to endanger human life, lost his control
over the vehicle, as a result of which, the vehicle turned turtle.
Consequently, the inmates of the said Maruti Omni have
NC: 2023:KHC:19462
CRL.RP No. 542 of 2015
sustained injuries and one of the inmates of the said vehicle
died in the said accident. PW.1 has lodged the complaint
against the petitioner herein, case came to be registered
against the petitioner. The jurisdictional police conducted
investigation and submitted charge sheet.
4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the
prosecution examined 10 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 10 and
got marked Exhibits P1 to P14. The Trial Court after
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record,
convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337, 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short
"IPC"). Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred
an appeal before the Appellate Court. In the appeal, the order
of sentence has been modified as is stated below:
"Criminal Appeal preferred by the
appellant/accused under Section 374 (3) and 382
of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed in part so as to correct
the order of sentence.
For the offense punishable U/ 279 of IPC the
appellant/accused shall pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in
default of payment of fine amount, to undergo S.I.
for one month.
NC: 2023:KHC:19462
CRL.RP No. 542 of 2015
For the offense punishable U/s 337 of IPC the
appellant/accused shall undergo S.I. for three
months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in
default of payment of fine amount, to undergo S.I.
for 15 days.
For the offense punishable U/s 304A of IPC the
appellant/accused shall undergo S.I. for six
months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in
default of payment of fine amount to undergo S.I.
for one month.
All the sentences shall run concurrently."
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this
revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings
recorded for conviction.
5. Heard Shri H.R.Anantha Krishna Murthy, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Rai.K., learned High
Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that, the concurrent findings recorded for conviction
is erroneous and it is opposed to the law and evidence on
record, hence, it is liable to be set aside.
NC: 2023:KHC:19462
CRL.RP No. 542 of 2015
7. It is further submitted that, the evidence of all the
witnesses, who are related to each other, ought not to have
been considered by the Trial Court while appreciating the
evidence. The mechanical defect i.e., steering of the vehicle
got jammed, as a result of which, the petitioner lost control
over the vehicle, in other words, it was uncontrollable for the
driver. The said mechanical defect ought to have been
considered by the Trial Court. Having failed to consider the
same, greater injustice is caused to the petitioner. The said
error of the Trial Court has to be looked into by this Court in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Making such submission,
learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to set aside the
concurrent findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts
below and seeks to acquit the petitioner for the above said
offences.
8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
(for short 'HCGP') justified the concurrent findings recorded for
conviction by the Courts below and submits that, the Trial
Court and the Appellate Court have rightly appreciated the
evidence on record and rightly held that the petitioner is guilty
NC: 2023:KHC:19462
CRL.RP No. 542 of 2015
of the offences under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of IPC.
Regarding the negligence of the petitioner is concerned,
evidence of all inmates are relevant and the theory of res ipsa
loquitor is clearly applicable to the case on hand. The accident
had occurred due to the negligence of the driver and none else.
Since the prosecution proved negligence of the petitioner, the
petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 279,
337 and 304-A of IPC. Hence, the well reasoned order passed
by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court do not call for any
interference by this Court. Having said thus, learned HCGP
prays to dismiss the petition.
9. After having heard the rival contentions urged by
the learned counsels for the respective parties, it is necessary
to formulate the points for consideration. They are:
i) Whether the concurrent findings recorded by
both the Courts below in convicting the petitioner
for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A
of IPC are sustainable?
NC: 2023:KHC:19462
CRL.RP No. 542 of 2015
ii) Whether the petitioner has made out
grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings
recorded by both the Courts below for conviction?
10. Considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction,
it is necessary to have a cursory look upon the evidence and
also documents available on record to cull out the error or
illegality, if any, committed by the Courts below while recording
the conviction of the petitioner.
11. Admittedly, PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 are the inmates
of Maruti Omni vehicle and it is also an admitted fact that, the
accused / petitioner was driving the said vehicle on the date of
the alleged incident. The identity of the accused has been
corroborated by the inmates of the vehicle. Though the
defence contended that there was a mechanical defect occurred
at the particular time, as a result of which, the accident
occurred, however, the evidence of PW.5, who is none other
than the Motor Vehicle Inspector who issued Ex.P3 - Report
indicates that, no such mechanical defect was noticed when he
conducted inspection of the said vehicle. Such being the fact,
NC: 2023:KHC:19462
CRL.RP No. 542 of 2015
the defence of the accused / petitioner was negatived by the
Trial Court and the Appellate Court appears to be proper and
relevant. Considering the oral and documentary evidence of all
the witnesses, the reasons assigned for conviction of the
petitioner by the Courts below appear to be proper and there
was no error committed by the Trial Court or the Appellate
Court to interfere in this matter by this Court in exercise of
power vested under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
12. However, considering the age of the case, age of
the petitioner and also other attending circumstances such as
family background, dependency and other circumstances, it is
appropriate to invoke the provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act in this case, after relying on the ratio laid down in
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alister
Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra1 and also State v.
Sanjeev Nanda2, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in both
the cases, was pleased to invoke provisions of the Probation of
(2012) 2 SCC 648
(2012) 8 SCC 450
NC: 2023:KHC:19462
CRL.RP No. 542 of 2015
Offenders Act and set the accused at liberty for the offence
punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC.
13. In the light of the observations made above, the
points which arose for my consideration are answered as
under:-
Point No.(i) - "Affirmative"
Point No.(ii) - "Partly Affirmative"
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in-part..
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 27.10.2010 passed in
C.C.No.555/2005 by the Court of the Civil Judge
& J.M.F.C., Belthangady, D.K., and judgment
and order dated 01.04.2015 passed in Crl.A.
No.165/2010 by the Court of I Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore are confirmed.
(iii) The Trial Court is directed to invoke the
provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, by
imposing suitable conditions against the
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:19462
CRL.RP No. 542 of 2015
petitioner, by considering the order of this court
and also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court stated supra in accordance with law.
(iv) The petitioner is directed to appear before the
Trial Court, to have the order of Probation of
Offenders Act, on 30.06.2023.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSS
