Karnataka High Court
A Tharanatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 March, 2023
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
CRL.RP No. 1276 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRL.R.P. NO. 1276 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
A.THARANATHA
NOW AGED 39 YEARS
S/O GUDDAPPA GOWDA
R/O PUNDI HOUSE
KARIKAL POST AND VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA
DISTRICT, PIN - 574 239.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SATEESH CHANDRA K, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
by B A KRISHNA BY MANGALURU RURAL POLICE
KUMAR
Location: High REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT
Court of
Karnataka OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU, PIN - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP.)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S.279,337,338,304-A OF IPC DATED 20.10.2018
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.,MANGALURU IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.156/2014 AS WELL AS JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S.279,337,338,304-A OF IPC DATED
27.06.2014 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS (III-COURT) MANGALORE D.K., IN C.C.NO.5131/2010.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING THE ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.RP No. 1276 of 2018
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') has been filed
by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the J.M.F.C, (III Court),
Mangalore, D.K, (for short the 'Trial Court) in
C.C.No.5131/2010 dated 27.06.2014 which was confirmed by
the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada,
Mangalore (for short the 'Appellate Court') in
Crl.A.No.156/2014 dated 20.10.2018.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent -
State..
3. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this
petition as revealed from the records that may be necessary for
disposal of this petition are, on 31.03.2010 at about 12.30 p.m,
at Kodakkal Kannuru Village, Mangalore Taluk, the petitioner
who was driver of the Lorry bearing registration no.CNG-9856
drove the same in National Highway toward B C Road on wrong
side of the road in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
CRL.RP No. 1276 of 2018
against the Ambassador Car bearing registration no.KA-21-
3033 which was coming from BC Road side to Mangalore on the
left side of the road. In the said accident, CWs.1, 2 and 5
sustained grievous injuries while CWs.3 & 4 sustained simple
injury. One Smt. Jameela who had also sustained grievous
injuries in the said accident subsequently succumbed to the
same on her way to hospital. CW1, who had sustained grievous
injuries also succumbed to the same on 20.04.2010 when he
was undergoing treatment for the said injuries in the Highland
Hospital, Mangalore. The statement of CW1 was recorded in the
hospital by CW26 and based on the same, a case was
registered against the petitioner in Crime no.89/2010 by the
jurisdictional police for the offences punishable under Sections
279, 337, 338 & 304(A) of IPC. After investigation, a charge
sheet was filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.
4. The petitioner had appeared before the Trial Court
and claimed to be tried. In order to substantiate its case, the
prosecution had examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and
also got marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to P20. The
petitioner-accused had denied all incriminating material
available on record against him during his Section 313 of
CRL.RP No. 1276 of 2018
Cr.P.C., statement. However, he did not choose to lead any
defence evidence nor any documents were marked in support
of defence. The Trial Court thereafter, heard the arguments and
passed the impugned judgment and order dated 27.06.2014
convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304(A) of IPC and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and pay fine of
Rs.2,000/-, in default to pay fine to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for 1 month for the offence under Section 279 of
IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC, the
petitioner was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1
month and fine of Rs.500/-, in default to pay fine to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for 10 days. For the offence punishable
under Section 338 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and pay fine of
Rs.2,000/-, in default to pay fine to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for 1 month and for the offence punishable under
Section 304(A) of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of
Rs.2,000/- in default to pay fine to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for 1 month. All sentences were directed to run
concurrently. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order,
CRL.RP No. 1276 of 2018
the petitioner had filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.156/2014 which
was partly allowed by the Appellate Court on 20.10.2018 and
the sentence imposed by the Trial Court was modified. It is in
this factual background, the petitioner is before this Court in
this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner for the
alleged offences. He submits that the material on record would
go to show that the accident in question had taken place due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Ambassador Car
and not because of the rash and negligent driving of the
petitioner. He submits that the oral and documentary evidence
available on record has not been properly appreciated by the
Courts below and thereby they have erred in convicting the
petitioner. He accordingly, prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below and
submits that the evidence of eye witnesses coupled with
documentary evidence clearly establishes that the petitioner
was driving the offending Lorry in a rash and negligent manner
CRL.RP No. 1276 of 2018
and material on record would also show that he was driving the
offending vehicle on the wrong side of the road. Accordingly,
she prays to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments
addressed on both the sides and also perused the material
available on record.
8. The prosecution in order to prove its case had
examined 11 witnesses before the Trial Court. PWs.1 to 4 are
the injured eye witnesses who have spoken about the accident
in question. They have consistently deposed before the Trial
Court to the effect that the petitioner who was driving the
offending lorry, drove the said vehicle on the wrong side of the
road in a rash and negligent manner and had dashed against
the Ambassador car in which they were traveling and had
caused accident. Nothing has been elicited from these
witnesses during their cross-examination so as to disbelieve
their evidence. They have also stated that two other
passengers who had sustained grievous injures in the accident
had succumbed to the same.
CRL.RP No. 1276 of 2018
9. Ex.P2 is rough sketch which shows that the accident
had happened, the Ambassador car was on the complete left
hand side of the road and the offending Lorry which was on the
wrong side of the road had moved completely to its right side
and dashed against the oncoming Car and thereby there was
head on collision between the two vehicles. Ex.P17 is the IMV
report which shows that because of the impact of accident,
front portion of the Car was completely damaged. Ex.P20 also
shows that after the accident took place the Car was dragged
by the offending Lorry for about 30 feet.
10. PW.1 who had sustained injury in the accident was
the driver of the Car and he has clearly stated that the Lorry
was driven in wrong side by the petitioner and he has also
identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending Lorry.
The evidence of PWs.2 to 4 corroborates the evidence of PW.1.
PW.5 is another independent eye witness who has also
supported the case of the prosecution. PW7 is seizure mahazar
witness, who has supported the case of the prosecution. PW9 is
the IMV Inspector who has stated that accident in question had
not taken place because of any mechanical failure of the
vehicles. If the evidence of eye witnesses coupled with spot
CRL.RP No. 1276 of 2018
mahazar Ex.P15 and rough sketch Ex.P20 is perused, it is
evident that the accident occurred on the left side of the road
from BC Road to Mangaluru and the offending Lorry was driven
on the wrong side of the road. The spot of the accident is on
the complete left hand side from BC Road to Mangaluru which
means that offending Lorry had moved towards its right side
and dashed against oncoming Car.
11. The Appellate Court after re-appreciating the oral
and documentary evidence available on record has recorded a
finding that since the road from Mangaluru to BC Road was
closed due to maintenance work all the vehicles were moving
on the road from BC Road to Mangaluru and taking this aspect
of the matter into consideration has observed that the driver of
the Car had also contributed to the accident and accordingly
while maintaining the judgment and order of conviction had
reduced the sentence of imprisonment and fine passed by the
Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 279,
337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. In my considered view the oral
and documentary evidence available on record clearly proves
that the petitioner who was the driver of the offending Lorry
had driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and
CRL.RP No. 1276 of 2018
had caused accident. Therefore, the Courts below are fully
justified in convicting the petitioner for the offences for which
he was charged. There is no illegality or irregularity in the said
judgment and order and the same does not calls for
interference by this Court. The appellate Court for the reasons
recorded by it has also taken a lenient view while sentencing
the petitioner and had reduced the sentence considerably.
Under the circumstance, I do not find any merit in this revision
petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NMS
