Karnataka High Court
Sri Rohith K vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 April, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15631
CRL.RP No. 1101 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1101 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ROHITH K.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O PURUSHOTHAM NAIK,
R/O KOTTIBETTU HOUSE,
TENKILA, BEHIND GOVT. HOSPITAL,
PUTTUR POST AND VILLAGE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS KAPU POLICE
Digitally signed
UDUPI DISTRICT,
by DEVIKA M REPRESENTED BY THE
Location: HIGH STATE PUBLIC PROSEUTOR,
COURT OF HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
12.06.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, UDUPI, UDUPI DISTRICT IN CRL.A.NO.7/2017
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 24.01.2015
PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS., UDUPI IN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15631
CRL.RP No. 1101 of 2017
C.C.NO.4650/2007 AND THEREBY CONVICTING THE
PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279,377,338,304A OF
IPC AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.4650/2007.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-
State.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that on 28.05.2007 at about 11.15 a.m. in the morning at
Mulur Village near Mulur Panchayat building on N.H.17, Udupi
Taluk, at that point of time, one Maxi Cab reached near Mulur
Grama Panchayat, at the same time, the petitioner being the
driver of bus bearing Registration No.KA-19D-3353 drove the
same from Udupi towards Mangaluru in rash and negligent
manner and while trying to overtake lorry, came to the extreme
western side and dashed to the Tempo. Hence, the police have
registered the case against the driver of the bus for the offence
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of IPC. In the
said incident, 27 persons have suffered simple and grievous
injuries and 17 persons have lost their life.
NC: 2024:KHC:15631
3. The police have investigated the matter and filed
the charge-sheet and the accused was secured and he did not
plead guilty and hence, he claimed trial and prosecution relied
upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 30 and got marked the
documents as Exs.P1 to P76. The accused did not choose to
lead any evidence, however confronted the documents Exs.D1
to D5 i.e., statement of some of the witnesses P.Ws.2, 3, 6, 13
and 17.
4. The Trial Court, having considered both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, particularly the
evidence of eye witnesses, who have suffered injuries and also
taking note of the documents at Exs.P65 and P66 which are the
IMV reports in respect of both the vehicles, taken note of the
damages caused to both the vehicles and also taken note of the
fact that 26 members have suffered injuries and out of them,
10 members have suffered simple injuries and 15 have suffered
grievous injuries and the Trial Court comes to the conclusion
that the prosecution has proved the case and also taken note of
documents of Ex.P76-sketch, which is marked before the Trial
Court and convicted the accused/revision petitioner for the
offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of IPC.
NC: 2024:KHC:15631
The accused is also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one
year six months for the offence punishable under Section
304-A of IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default
of payment of fine amount, to undergo further imprisonment
for two months. In respect of offence punishable under Section
337 of IPC, ordered to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a period of 15
days and also in respect of the offence punishable under
Section 338 of IPC, ordered to undergo imprisonment for a
period of 2 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of
payment of fine amount, to undergo further imprisonment for a
period of 15 days and all the sentence shall run concurrently.
The same is challenged before the First Appellate Court in
Crl.A.No.7/2015. The First Appellate Court also on re-
appreciation of evidence, particularly in Para Nos.24 to 29,
confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by
the said judgment of confirmation of conviction and sentence,
present revision petition is filed before this Court.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner before this Court is that in the said Tempo Traveler,
there were more than 41 inmates and the same was
NC: 2024:KHC:15631
overloaded and the said fact has not been taken into
consideration by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
The IMV report and Mahazar exhibits are post accident
reflection of the picture, which cannot be much relied upon for
conviction. Both the Courts committed an error in not properly
appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record and it requires interference. Learned counsel also would
vehemently contend that no investigation is made with regard
to the overloading and driver of the Maxi Cab himself has
contributed for the accident, since he has lost control, came
and dashed against the bus.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent-State would contend that there were 27 injured
persons and out of that, 10 have suffered simple injuries and
15 persons have suffered grievous injuries and 17 persons have
lost their life. He would also submit that when the vehicle was
proceeding from Udupi towards Mangaluru, that too in the
Highway, the driver of the bus, while overtaking the lorry, went
ahead of the vehicle and went towards right side of the road
and the same is depicted in Ex.P76-sketch and the document of
Ex.P76 is not disputed and even the accused did not explain
NC: 2024:KHC:15631
why he went towards wrong side of the road and the contention
of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted
that Maxi cab contributed to the accident due to overloading
and the Court has to take note of negligence on the part of the
driver of the bus and he went towards wrong side and caused
the accident. Hence, the finding of the Trial Court as well as
the First Appellate Court does not require any interference of
this Court.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent-State and having considered the material on
record, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court
are:
(1) Whether both the Courts have committed an
error in convicting and sentencing the
petitioner and whether it requires
interference of this Court and the order of the
Trial Court suffers from its legality and
correctness?
(2) What order?
NC: 2024:KHC:15631
Point No.(1)
8. Having perused the material on record and also
keeping in view the contentions urged by the learned counsel
for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government
Pleader, the very case of the prosecution is that on 28.05.2007
at about 11.15 a.m., this petitioner drove the bus in a rash and
negligent manner and caused the accident against the Maxi
cab. As a result, 17 persons have lost their lives and 27
persons have sustained injuries. The prosecution mainly relies
upon the evidence of injured witness and also other witnesses.
The witnesses P.Ws.2 to 4, 6, 9 to 13, 16, 18, 21 and 22, who
are the inmates of the vehicle have categorically deposed that
accident has occurred at 11.15 a.m. and the same has occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the bus and the evidence
of these witnesses is very clear that the vehicle went towards
wrong side and dashed against the Maxi Cab.
9. It is also important to note that the document of
Ex.P76-sketch depicts the place of accident and the same is
very clear that the accident has occurred in the Highway and
the driver of the bus was proceeding towards Mangaluru and he
went almost to the extreme side of the road and caused the
NC: 2024:KHC:15631
accident and when Ex.P76 is not disputed during the course of
cross-examination of witnesses and apart from that, Exs.P65
and P66 are IMV reports which clearly disclose that right
portion of the bus was damaged and entire Maxi cab was
damaged and as a result, the inmates i.e., 17 persons have lost
their life. On perusal of Exs.P65, it is seen that front shape i.e.,
right hand side corner body, driver's side door, front window
screen glass, corner glass, driver's door glass, right hand side
rear mirror were damaged and damages are caused to the
larger extent and also in respect of Maxi cab KA-20-5127, the
entire vehicle was damaged.
10. Having taken note of impact on the vehicle as well
as when the vehicle went towards the wrong side and dashed
against the Maxi cab, as a result, the inmates of the Maxi cab
have suffered simple injuries as well as grievous injuries and 17
persons have lost their life. The Trial Court, while considering
the evidence of prosecution, in detail discussed the evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 30 and also taken note of particularly the document
of Exs.P3, P69 and P77 and documentary evidence also
supports the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses and driver
of the bus, without taking due care and caution, negligently
NC: 2024:KHC:15631
took his vehicle to extreme right side of the road and the same
is observed in Para No.13 of the judgment of the Trial Court
and in Para No.32 and particularly considered the damages
caused to both the vehicle and IMV reports i.e., Exs.P65 and
P66.
11. The First Appellate Court also, while re-appreciating
the material on record, particularly in Para No.24, assessed the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly injured
witnesses P.Ws. 2 to 4, 6, 9 to 13, 16, 18, 21 and 22 and all of
them have supported the case of the prosecution and 17
inmates of the Maxi cab have lost their life. The First Appellate
Court has also taken note of damages caused in Para No.27
and particularly P.W.2, who is the eye witness and other
injured witnesses have also deposed about the manner of
accident and they have identified the accused and the Court
has to take note of maxim res-ipsa loquitur, "the things speak
for itself" i.e., the manner in which the accident has occurred
and when there are eye witnesses and also injured witnesses
have spoken about the manner in which the accident has
occurred and also documentary evidence supports the case of
the prosecution, I do not find any error committed by the Trial
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15631
Court and the First Appellate Court in appreciating the evidence
and there is no perversity in the findings of the Trial Court and
the First Appellate Court and both the Courts have considered
the material on record i.e., oral evidence as well as the
documentary evidence available on record, particularly Exs.P3,
P69 and P77 and also Exs.P65, P66, P75 and all these
documentary evidence corroborates the evidence of prosecution
witnesses. Hence, I do not find any illegality committed by
both the Courts and orders of both the Courts not suffers from
its legality and correctness and scope of revision is also very
limited. Hence, no grounds are made out to set aside the order
of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
12. Now coming to the aspect of sentence is concerned,
the Trial Court has awarded sentence of one year six months
for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Having
taken note of the nature of injuries sustained by the inmates of
the Maxi cab and also considering the fact that 17 deaths have
occurred on account of the accident, the sentence is also not on
the higher side i.e., for a period of one year six months and the
same commensurate with the gravity of the offence and nature
of the accident. It is also important to note that the main
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15631
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at
the time of the accident, there were more passengers in the
Maxi cab and the said contention cannot be accepted when the
driver of the bus, went towards extreme right side of the road
and caused the accident and no material is placed before the
Court to evidence the fact that driver of the Maxi cab
contributed to the accident and Ex.P76 depicts the place of
accident. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner cannot be accepted and question of taking any
lenient view also does not arise.
13. No doubt, the accident is not an intentional act, but
while driving the vehicle, that too a public transport i.e., bus in
a Highway, the driver should have control over the vehicle, but
he himself has went to the right side of the road and caused
the accident. I have already pointed out that driver of the Maxi
cab has not contributed to the accident. When such being the
case, it is not a fit case to reduce the sentence having
considered the gravity of offence and the fact that number of
persons have sustained simple and grievous injuries and 17
persons have lost their life and even the Trial Court has not
awarded maximum sentence and only imposed sentence of one
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15631
year six months and hence, with regard to the sentence also, it
does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.
Point No.(2)
4. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
