Karnataka High Court

Tanveer Pasha vs State By Traffic Police Station on 19 April, 2024

                              -1-
                                    CRL.RP No. 403 of 2017


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
       DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
                        BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
    CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 403 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
   TANVEER PASHA
   S/O.PHARA JHAN
   AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
   R/AT NO.1044, 1ST CROSS
   GHOUSIYA NAGAR
   RAMANAGARA TOWN & DISTRICT
                                             ...PETITIONER

(BY SMT. GOWHAR UNNISA, ADVOCATE)

AND:
   STATE BY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION
   RAMANAGARA
   REP. BY THE SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
   HIGH COURT BUILDING
   AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
   BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                            ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)

      THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGAR IN
C.C.NO.918/2008 DATED 14.09.2012 AND ALSO JUDGMENT
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAMANAGARA IN CRL.A.NO.31/2012 DATED 20.01.2017 AND
ETC.,

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 30.01.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
                               -2-
                                         CRL.RP No. 403 of 2017


                            ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the

petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and

order on sentence dated 14.09.2012 in C.C.No.918/2008 on

the file of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Ramanagara

and its confirmation judgment and order dated 20.01.2017 in

Crl.A.No.31/2012 on the file of the Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, seeking to set aside the

concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the

petitioner / accused is convicted for the offences punishable

under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code

(for short 'IPC').

2. The rank of the parties in the Trial Court will be

considered henceforth for convenience.

Brief facts of the case:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.05.2008

at about 9.00 p.m., near Ramanagara old bus stand, the

accused being the driver of the vehicle bearing registration

No.KA.28.A.4745 drove the same in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed Suresh and thereafter again dashed

Bolero jeep bearing registration No.MH.15.TR.EL.257 and the

driver of Bolero Jeep namely Krishnappa who was standing

near the jeep, consequently, Suresh who sustained injuries,

succumbed to the same while he was on the way to Victoria

Hospital, Bengaluru and another person Krishnappa sustained

both grievous and simple injuries. A complaint came to be

registered by Siddaraju who is the elder brother of the

deceased Suresh. The jurisdictional police after registering the

case in Crime No.98/2008 conducted investigation and

submitted the charge sheet for the offences under Sections

279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC.

4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the

prosecution examined seven witnesses as PW.1 to PW.7 and

also got marked seven documents as Exs.P1 to P7.

5. Heard Smt.Gowhar Unnisa, learned counsel for

petitioner and Sri.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 of the Courts below in

recording the conviction are not proper and the evidence of all

the witnesses has not been considered properly, hence, the

same is liable to be set aside.

7. It is his further submission that the evidence of

PW.2 ought not to have been considered by the Trial Court to

the extent that PW.2 was an eyewitness to the incident, PWs.3

and 4 were said to be the inmates of the Bolero jeep, they had

been to purchase pooja items and they could not have seen the

accident. The Trial Court has committed an error in

appreciating the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and recorded the

conviction which is not proper. Therefore, the concurrent

findings need to be set aside. Making such submission, the

learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader (for short 'HCGP') vehemently justified the concurrent

findings and submitted that the Trial Court and the Appellate

Court acted upon the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 4 who are the

eyewitnesses to the incident and they are consistent in their

evidence regarding rash and negligent driving of the accused.

PW.5 being the injured witness has deposed in corroboration of

the evidence of PWs.1 to 4. There is nothing to discredit the

evidence of all the witnesses. The findings of the Courts below

in recording the conviction are proper and appropriate and

therefore, it is not necessary to interfere with the said findings.

Having considered thus, the learned HCGP prays to dismiss the

petition.

9. After having heard the learned counsel for the

respective parties and perused the findings of the Courts below

in recording the conviction, it appears that PW.1 has lodged a

complaint and he is the brother of the deceased. According to

him, the vehicle which was being driven by the accused came

in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the jeep which

was parked near Shariff Complex and also caused the accident

to his brother and the driver of the Bolero vehicle which was

standing outside the Bolero vehicle. After the accident, the

driver of the vehicle ran away from the spot. PW.1 is said to

have lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1 and also supported the

case of the prosecution in respect of spot mahazar which is

marked as Ex.P2.

10. PW.2 was working as the Deputy Director of Land

Reforms in the Survey Department attached to the Ramnagar

District on the date of the alleged incident. He took the Bolero

jeep which was allotted to him by the Government which was a

new vehicle. He came to Ramanagar around 9.00 p.m., and

parked his vehicle to purchase pooja items. According to him,

he was sitting in the jeep and his driver was sitting beside to

him, by that time, a mini tempo came behind his vehicle and

caused accident, consequently, Bolero jeep got damaged. The

jeep driver also sustained injuries.

11. PW.3 was working as a Supervisor in Ramanagar

Tahsildar office. He stated to have gone to purchase pooja

items. On hearing the hue and cry of the persons who

sustained injuries in the accident, rushed to the spot and

noticed that a tempo bearing its registration No.KA.28.A.4745

caused the accident to the person who was walking on the

road, driver of the jeep and also to the jeep. PW.4 has deposed

inconsonance with the evidence of PW.3.

12. PW.5 was the driver of the Bolero jeep. According

to him, he was standing outside the jeep on the left side, by

that time, a tempo came from Mysuru side and dashed to a

person and caused injuries and thereafter, it dashed to him.

Further, the said tempo/goods vehicle caused damage to the

Bolero vehicle which was parked on the left side. In his

evidence, he has noticed the driver who was driving the said

vehicle as Tanveer Pasha.

13. PW.6 was working as PSI of Ramanagara Traffic

Police Station is said to have registered a case. PW.7 being the

Circle Inspector, Ramanagara, stated to have conducted

investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

14. On careful reading of the evidence of all the

witnesses, they are consistent in their evidence that they have

not seen the accused. PW.1 says in his evidence that after the

accident, the accused ran away from the spot. PW.5 being an

injured witness has stated that he has mentioned the name of

the driver of the tempo, however, he has not disclosed as to

how he came to know the name of the person who caused

accident. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court should have

considered the fact that the name of the accused was neither

mentioned in the complaint nor the method as to how they

received the information regarding the driver of the vehicle.

The alleged accident is said to have taken place on 23.05.2008

around 9.00 p.m. The case came to be registered around

about 1.20, however, whether it is a.m or p.m has not been

mentioned in the complaint. On seeing Ex.P1, there is some

alteration in respect of date. In the complaint, even though it

is mentioned that the accident had taken place on 23.05.2008,

the date has been altered from 24 to 23 and some portion of

the averments had been struck down, but there is no signature

regarding its confirmation. The Investigating Officer after the

accident not caused a notice under Section 133 of Motor

Vehicles Act to ascertain the owner of the said vehicle.

Therefore, the judgment of conviction recorded by the Trial

Court assuming that the accused was the driver of the said

vehicle as on the date of the alleged accident appears to be

erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside.

15. In the light of the observation made above, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.


     (ii)    The   judgment    of   conviction   and   order   of

             sentence    dated      14.09.2012     passed      in

C.C.No.918/2008 by the Principal Civil Judge and

J.M.F.C., at Ramanagara and judgment and

order dated 20.01.2017 in Crl.A.No.31/2012 by

the Principal District and Sessions Judge at

Ramanagara, are set aside.