Prakash Irappa Sanadi vs State Of Karantaka
2023 Latest Caselaw 3498 Kant

                                                      -1-
                                                            CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                             DHARWAD BENCH


                               DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                                                   BEFORE

                               THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
                        CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100194 OF 2015
                        BETWEEN:

                        SHRI. PRAKASH IRAPPA SANADI,
                        AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC : DRIVER,
                        R/O : M-MALLAPUR, NOW AT IRANATTI,
                        TQ : GOKAK, DIST : BELAGAVI.
                                                                          ...PETITIONER

                        (BY SRI. S. A. NEELOPANT, ADV.)

                        AND:
          Digitally
          signed by J
          MAMATHA       STATE OF KARANTAKA,
J
MAMATHA   Date:
          2023.06.21
                        THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
          12:27:00
          +0530         HIGH COURT DHARWAD
                        BY BELAGAVI TRAFFIC NORTH POLICE STATION.

                                                                         ...RESPONDENT

                        (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)

                                                      ***

                              THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 AND
                        401 OF CR.P.C SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
                        BOTH THE COURTS, AND TO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY
                        THE II ADLL SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI IN CRL.APPL.NO.29/2013
                        DATED 06/07/2015 DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND CONFORMED THE
                        JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE JMFC II
                        COURT BELAGAVI IN C.C.NO.854/11 DTD:17.01.2013 HAS TO BE
                        SET ASIDE AND PASSING THE ORDER OF SENTENCE.
                                 -2-
                                      CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015



     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 11.04.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

Revision petitioner/accused feeling aggrieved by

judgment of first Appellate Court on the file of II Addl. District

and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.A.No.29/2013, dated

6.7.2015, preferred this revision petition.

2. Parties to the revision petition are referred with

their ranks as assigned before the trial Court for the sake of

convenience.

3. The factual matrix leading to the case of

prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that on

24.7.2011 at about 5.10 p.m. on Belagavi Club road, near Bank

of Maharashtra, accused was driving TATA Winger vehicle

bearing No.KA-24/M-2446 from Belagavi Club road to

Vishveshwarayya Circle with high speed in rash and negligent

manner, so as to endanger to human life. On account of such

actionable negligence of accused in driving the vehicle, dashed

against motorcycle from it's back side and rider of motorcycle

Sri.Prakash Deepak Benke succumbed to injuries sustained in

the accident. It is further alleged that accused after the accident

CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015

fled away from the place without taking care of injured to

provide medical assistance, further failed to give information to

police station about the factum of accident. On these allegations

made in the complaint, investigation was carried out and

investigating officer filed charge sheet.

4. In response to summons, accused appeared

through counsel. The substance of the accusation was framed,

accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The

prosecution to prove the allegations made against accused

relied on the evidence of PWs-1 to 10 and documents at Exs.P.1

to 16.

5. On closure of the prosecution evidence, statement

of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. came to be recorded.

Accused denied all the incriminating material evidence

appearing against him and claimed that false case is filed. The

trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record convicted the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A

of I.P.C. and Section 187 of M.V. Act.

6. Accused challenged the said judgment of conviction

and order of sentence before the first Appellate Court in

Crl.A.No.29/2013. The first Appellate Court on re-appreciation

CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015

of evidence on record by judgment dated 6.7.2015, dismissed

the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence passed by trial Court.

7. Revision petitioner challenged concurrent finding of

both courts below contending that evidence of PWs.1 and 3 are

not sufficient to prove actionable negligence of accused in

driving TATA Winger vehicle bearing No. KA-24/M-2446 leading

to the accident in question. The Courts below have not properly

appreciated the defence of accused with reference to evidence

of PWs. 1 and 3 and spot features under spot panchanama-

Ex.P.9, sketch map-Ex.P.6, as a result recorded improper

reasoning in holding that prosecution has proved accusation

levelled against the accused. The approach and appreciation of

oral and documentary evidence by both the Courts below and

finding recorded cannot be legally sustained. Therefore, prayed

for allowing the revision petition and to set aside the judgment

of conviction and order of sentence passed by both courts

below. Consequently to acquit the accused from the accusation

levelled against him.

8. In response to notice, learned High Court

Government Pleader has appeared for respondent/State.

CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015

9. Heard the arguments of both sides.

10. The accident in question took place on 24.7.2011 at

5.00 p.m. on Belagavi Club road, near Bank of Maharashtra,

accused was driving TATA Winger vehicle bearing No.KA-24/M-

2446 dashed against the motorcycle proceeding in front of the

vehicle driven by accused and as a result rider of the motorcycle

Prakash Benke succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident

are the facts not in serious dispute and the same can also be

born out from the oral evidence placed on record by

prosecution. The only dispute is with regard to culpable

rashness or negligence of accused in driving TATA Winger

vehicle bearing No. KA-24/M-2446 leading to the accident in

question. The material witnesses relied by the prosecution to

prove the allegations made against the accused are PW.1, who

filed complaint-Ex.P.1 and brother of deceased Prakash, PW.3-

rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/EE-1319. The said

evidence is sought to be corroborated by evidence of PW.9-

M.V.inspector with M.V.report-Ex.P.15 and with that of

investigating officers-PWs.7 and 10.

11. PWs.1 and 3 have deposed to the effect that on

24.7.2011, they were proceeding on two wheeler bearing

CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015

No.KA-22/EE-1319, PW.3 was rider of the vehicle and PW.1 was

pillion rider. On another motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/E2956

Prakash was proceeding in front of them. When they reached

near bank of Maharastra, accused came driving his vehicle from

college road and dashed against the motorcycle of Prakash from

it's back side. Due to which Prakash fell down and sustained

injuries. Accused without stopping the vehicle fled away from

the place and other two friends of Prakash, who came to the

spot shifted him to district Government Hospital. PWs.1 and 3

chased accused and stopped the vehicle driven by accused in

front of JNMC hospital, where the police have also arrived at the

said place and caught the accused, they have taken him to

police station. The injured Prakash succumbed to injures

sustained in the accident. PW.1 has filed complaint-Ex.P.1.

12. The evidence of PW.5 would go to show that while

he was on patrolling duty of civil hospital, he received

information from control room to stop vehicle bearing No.KA-

24/M-2446 and bring rider of the motorcycle to police station.

PW.5 has apprehended vehicle in front of KLE hospital and

produced before PW.7.

CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015

13. The defence of the accused is that PWs.1 and 3

have consumed alcohol in Veer Dhaba and while returning to

their home riding motorcycle with high speed, the rider of

motorcycle all of a sudden applied disk break due to which,

vehicle was skid and Prakash succumbed to injuries on account

of his own negligence. The said defence suggested to PWs.1 and

3 have been denied by them. The said defence is not suggest to

investigating officer-PW.7. The P.M.Report-Ex.P.14 also does

not speak anything about presence of alcohol contents in the

abdomen. The defence counsel on the other hand contended

that in P.M.Report-Ex.P.14 stomach contained 100 M.L. of

yellowish fluid. There is possibility of same being alcohol, the

same has been denied by PW.8. Other than above defence of

accused, virtually there is no evidence on record to prove that

deceased Prakash, PW.1 and 3 were proceeding on their

respective motorcycles after consuming alcohol in Veer Dhaba

and due to skid of vehicle driven by Prakash, he died due to his

own fault.

14. It has been elicited in the cross examination of

PW.3 that vehicle driven by accused dashed to indicator of the

vehicle belongs to PW.3 and indicator was broken. There was

quarrel between them with regard to the said incident and the

CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015

same was compromised agreeing that PW.3 to bear indicator

expenses and accused to give the expenses of side glass.

Thereafter, accused went away from the place.

15. The spot features recorded in the panchanama-

Ex.P.9, sketch-Ex.P.6 would go to show that road at the place of

accident runs from east to west and width of road is 33 feet.

The place of accident is shown at the distance of 10 feet from

southern side. The evidence of PWs.1 and 3 would speak to the

effect that deceased Prakash rider of the motorcycle bearing

No.KA-22/E-2956 was proceeding in front of vehicle bearing No.

KA-24/M-2446 driven by accused. The photographs as per

Exs.P.4 and 5 would go to show that road at the place of

accident is straight road. The accused while driving TATA Winger

vehicle bearing No.KA-24/M-2446 did not take required

precaution in maintaining sufficient and safe distance between

the vehicles dashed to motorcycle from it's back side which was

proceeding in front of the vehicle driven by the accused, as a

result of such actionable negligence the accident in question has

occurred leading to death of Prakash-rider of motorcycle bearing

No.KA-22/EA-2956. The accused has not offered any

explanation during the course of his 313 of Cr.P.C. statement as

to compelling reason beyond his control and could not keep safe

CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015

distance in between the motorcycle driven by deceased Prakash

and the vehicle driven by accused. The defence of accused that

deceased Prakash, PWs. 1 and 3 after consuming alcohol in Veer

Dhaba were proceeding on the motorcycle and while racing on

the road, the vehicle driven by Prakash was skid and due to his

own fault succumbed to the injuries cannot be legally sustained,

since the same is not supported by any evidence on record.

16. The contention of learned counsel for revision

petitioner that PWs.4 and 6 are eye witnesses to the accident

and they have not supported to the case of prosecution, and

PW.1 being the brother of deceased Prakash and PW.3 is friend

of PW.1 are interested whiteness and their evidence is

unreliable and cannot be legally sustained.

17. The presence of PWs.1 and 3 at the place of

accident, having seen the accident is not disputed by the

accused. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 3 is consistent enough

with regard to the manner in which the accident took place.

The evidence of PWs.1 and 3, complaint allegations-Ex.P.1,

coupled with evidence of PW.5, who apprehended the accused

substantiate the allegation that accused immediately after

accident did not stop the vehicle to attend injured for providing

- 10 -

CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015

medical treatment and further failed to give information about

the accident to nearest police station. The Courts below have

rightly appreciated the evidence on record and justified in

holding that accusation levelled against the accused are proved

by prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.

18. Now coming to the question of imposition of

sentence, the trial Court has sentenced the accused to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence

punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code and

sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default shall undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 month. The accused is

sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years for the

offence punishable under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code

and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default shall undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Accused is also

sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3

months for the offence punishable under Section 187 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in

default shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1

month. The said sentence of imprisonment were ordered to run

concurrently.

- 11 -

CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015

19. Learned counsel for revision petitioner in support of

his contention that imposition of sentence needs to be interfered

by this Court and appropriate compensation can be awarded for

the death of Prakash relied on the judgment of Honb'le Apex

Court in Manish Jalan V/s. State of Karnataka in

Crl.A.No.1066/2008 in the said case before Honb'le Apex

Court, conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 279

and 304-A of I.P.C. was maintained and sentence of

imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone and

in addition thereto, accused was directed to pay amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- to the mother of deceased by way of

compensation. The mother of deceased filed an affidavit that

she was ready willing to receive additional compensation fixed

by the Court and on such affidavit of mother of deceased and

looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Honb'le

Apex Court reduced sentence for the period already undergone

by the accused and in addition to it compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded. In the present case, no any such

facutal aspects are as involved in the aforementioned judgment

of Hon'ble Apex Court.

20. The trial Court has imposed rigorous imprisonment

for 6 months and fine for the offence punishable under Section

- 12 -

CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015

279 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine for

the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and

rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine for the offence

punishable under Section 187 of M.V.Act. The trial Court and

the First Appellate Court not assigned any reason for imposing

sentence of rigorous imprisonment. The imposition of entire

sentence prescribed for the aforesaid offences is not mandatory.

The court has to exercise its judicial discretion in imposing

sentence looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. In

the present case, looking to the nature of evidence of PWs.1

and 3, the manner in which the accident took place and other

attending circumstances are taken into consideration, then it

appears that imposition of sentence of rigorous imprisonment

for the aforesaid offences is too harsh and the same needs to be

interfered with by ordering to maintain the sentence of fine

amount with default clause.

21. If the accused is sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under

Section 279 of IPC and 6 months simple imprisonment for the

offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. by maintaining

the fine amount imposed by the trial Court is ordered will meet

the ends of justice only to that extent for modifying the

- 13 -

CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015

imposition of sentence as ordered by the trial Court, which is

affirmed by the First Appellate Court, interference of this Court

is required. Consequently, proceed to pass the following.

ORDER

Criminal Revision Petition filed by revision

petitioner/accused is hereby partly allowed.

The judgment of the First Appellate Court on the file of II

Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in

Crl.A.No.29/2013, dated 6.7.2015 confirming the judgment of

the trial Court on the file of JMFC-II, Belagavi in

C.C.No.854/2011, dated 17.01.2013 is hereby modified as

under:

Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for

3 months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C.

and 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable

under Section 304-A of I.P.C.

The rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence

punishable under Section 187 of M.V. Act. is set aside.

- 14 -

CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015

The fine amount imposed by the trial Court with default

clause for the aforesaid offences is maintained.

The registry is directed to transmit the records with the

copy of this judgment to trial Court.

(Sd/-) JUDGE

VB/-