Karnataka High Court
Abdul Salam vs State By Mangaluru Rural Circle Ullal ... on 15 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15086
CRL.RP No. 881 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.881 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
ABDUL SALAM
S/O MOHAMMED HAJI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/O KURNADUSAMBAR THOTA
BANTWAL TALUK
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
BAITHUL FALAH
JAPPU, BAPPAL I CROSS,
NANDIGUDDE
MANGALORE - 575 002
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MUZAFFAR AHMED, ADVOCATE - ABSENT-)
Digitally signed by D
HEMA AND:
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
STATE BY MANGALURU RURAL CIRCLE
ULLAL POLICE
MANGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI P.THEJESH, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15086
CRL.RP No. 881 of 2019
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PEITITON IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.11.2012 PASSED BY
THE J.M.F.C.-III COURT, MANGALURU IN C.C.NO.1506/2011
AND THE CONFIRMATION JUDGMENT OF THE SAME VIDE
ORDER DATED 24.04.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN
CRL.A.NO.335/2012 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed by the accused in
C.C.No.1506 of 2011 on the file of the J.M.F.C. (III Court),
Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada District (for short, 'Trial
Court'). The accused has been charge-sheeted for the
offence punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. After trial, he was convicted by
the Trial Court. He challenged the same before the II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada,
Mangaluru District (for short, Appellate Court) in
Crl.A.No.335 of 2012. The learned Sessions Judge
dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment dated
24.04.2019. The same is challenged in the present
revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
NC: 2024:KHC:15086
2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are
that on 29.01.2011 at about 6.00 p.m., the accused being
the driver of Tempo bearing Registration No.KA-19-C-1685
drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner at Boliyar
Guttu Mane at Boliyar Village, Mangaluru and dashed
against the pedestrian, viz., Kariyappa Poojary, who was
going on the extreme left side of the mud road. As a result
of impact, the said Kariyappa Poojary had sustained
grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment, he
succumbed to injuries on 30.01.2011. PW-1 had seen the
incident and he gave complaint to the police as per Ex.P1.
On the basis of the said complaint, Konaje Police of
Mangaluru District registered a case in Crime No.16 of
2011. The matter was investigated by the said Police. On
conclusion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet
before Trial Court for the offences punishable under
Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
3. Trial Court took cognizance of the case and
secured presence of the accused. The learned Magistrate
after supplying the copy of the charge-sheet and
NC: 2024:KHC:15086
enclosures to the accused recorded the plea of the
accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
4. The prosecution to prove its case examined
PWs-1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 and closed its
evidence.
5. The learned Trial Judge examined the accused
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and his answers were
recorded. The accused did not offer defence evidence.
6. The learned Trial Judge after hearing both the
parties and on appreciating evidence available on record,
by its judgment dated 03.11.2012 convicted the accused
of the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of
IPC. The learned Trial Judge sentenced accused as under:
"The Accused found guilty for the offences
punishable under sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C.
Acting under section 255(2) Cr.P.C., the
accused is hereby convicted for the offences
punishable under section 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C.
NC: 2024:KHC:15086
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under section
279 of I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment of 8 months and also sentenced to
pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable
under section 304(A) of I.P.C. In default of
payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple
imprisonment for 1 month.
The bail bond of the accused and of his surety
executed at the time of bail stage shall stands
cancelled
Furnish free copy of the Judgment to the
accused".
7. The said conviction and sentence of accused
was challenged by him in Crl.A.No.335 of 2012 before
Appellate Court. The Appellate Court heard both side
parties and re-appreciated evidence available on recod and
came to conclusion that there were no reasons to find fault
with findings of Trial Court and hence, dismissed the
appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:15086
8. The matter is of the year 2019. None appeared
on behalf of petitioner and addressed the arguments. I
have heard the arguments of the learned HCGP.
9. The learned HCGP vehemently contends that
both the Courts below appreciated and re-appreciated the
evidence available on record and convicted the accused.
There are no reasons to interfere in the said findings. The
grounds of the revision petition are not tenable. There is
no illegality committed by the Court below in the
impugned judgment. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the
revision petition.
10. Following question arises for my determination:
"Whether impugned judgment suffers from
any infirmity, illegality and arbitrariness and
needs intervention by this Court?"
11. Looking to the cross-examination of material
witnesses, i.e., witnesses as well as the investigating
officers, the accused has not disputed the manner in which
the accident had taken place. Though in the cross-
examination of PWs-1 and 2, it was suggested that the
NC: 2024:KHC:15086
offended vehicle did not hit the deceased Kariyappa
Poojary and due to his old age and weakness, he fell down
and sustained injuries and died. The order-sheet dated
08.05.2012 of the Trial Court reveals that with the consent
of both the parties, the post-mortem report and inquest
was marked as Exs.P6 and P7. Ex.P6 indicates that injuries
sustained by the deceased was in vehicle accident and he
died due to the said injuries. Therefore, the accused has
given up his defence that death was not caused due to
vehicle accident. The deceased was aged around 60
years. There are no reliable materials to believe that he
was very weak. The said fact was suggested to PW-2 and
he denied the same. Hence, said defence is not probable.
12. Both PWs-1 and 2 have stated about the manner
in which the accident had taken place and reasons for the
accident. They had deposed that accused being driver of
the offended Tempo, drove his vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against Kariyappa Poojary,
who was going at the extreme left side of the road (on the
mud road/footpath). As per Ex.P2 and P3, width of the tar
NC: 2024:KHC:15086
road at the spot of the accident was 18 feet and both side,
there was mud road having width of 3 feet. The spot of the
accident is on the footpath/mud road. After hitting
Kariyappa Poojary, the said Tempo again went towards left
side of the road and stopped in an agricultural land. The
manner in which the accident had taken place itself clearly
indicates that the accused did not have control over the
said vehicle and he drove his vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner as well as in high speed. The said fact is
also corroborated by the evidence of PWs-1 and 2.
13. PW-3 is the motor vehicle Inspector who had
inspected the vehicle and given the report as per Ex.P5
stating that the accident had not taken place due to
mechanical defects of the vehicle and it was also not
defence of the accused. PWs-4 and 5 are the witness to
Exs.P2 and P3. They had also corroborated the case of the
prosecution and proved drawing up of Exs.P2 and P3.
14. PWs-6 to 9 are the Police officials and out of
them, PWs-6 and 9 are investigating officers. They had
also deposed before the Court regarding investigation
NC: 2024:KHC:15086
done by them. In their cross-examination, accused could
not bring out any facts to show that there were lapses in
the investigation. Accused did not explain as to why his
vehicle went towards the mud road and thereafter,
stopped in the agricultural land. Nothing was brought out
in the cross-examination of PWs-1, 2, 6 and 9 to
disbelieve the case of the prosecution.
15. The Trial Court had properly appreciated the
evidence available on record and rightly convicted the
accused of the said offences. The punishment imposed by
the Trial Court is also not disproportionate. The First
Appellate Court once again re-appreciated the evidence
and confirmed the findings of by the Trial Court by the
impugned judgment. Both the Courts have not committed
any error or illegality, in the said findings.
16. Most of the grounds of the revision petition are
pertaining to injuries sustained by the deceased as well as
cause of his death. As already stated in the above
paragraphs, though initially in the cross-examination of
PWs-1 and 2, accused denied that his Tempo hit against
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15086
the deceased but at later point of time, the post-mortem
was marked with the consent as Ex.P6 and due to the
same, prosecution did not examine the medical officer who
had conducted post-mortem to prove that death was due
to the injuries sustained in the vehicle accident.
17. It is also pertinent to note that in the cross-
examination of PWs-1 and 2, the accused did not bring out
any facts to show that both the witnesses had any enmity
against him to file a false case against him. Having
admitted the fact of death, during trial of the case, now
accused cannot contend that death was not due to injuries
sustained in the accident. Therefore, the said ground of
revision petition is not tenable. Except the said grounds,
there are no other reasons stated in the revision petition
to accept that the impugned judgment is erroneous.
Therefore, the findings of the Courts below are in
accordance with law and does not call for any interference.
For the above said reasons, I answer the question in
the 'negative' and pass the following:
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15086
ORDER
i) The Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read
with 401 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
ii) The impugned order passed by the learned II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru,
Dakshina Kannada District in Crl.A.No.335 of 2012
dated 24.04.2019 is confirmed.
iii) Bail bond executed by Revision Petitioner and
Surety stands cancelled.
iv) Forty Five (45) days time is granted to the
revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court to
undergo the sentence.
v) Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court
Records along with a copy of this Order to the Trial
Court, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DH
