Karnataka High Court
Sahebgouda vs The State on 2 February, 2024
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1234
CRL.RP No. 200083 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2 ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200083 OF 2018
(397)
BETWEEN:
SAHEBGOUDA
S/O BASSAPPA @ BASAWARAJ KALAL,
AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O MALLALLI, TQ. SHAHAPUR, DISTRICT YADGIRI,
MINOR UNDERGUARDIAN NATURAL FATHER,
BASSAPPA @ BASAVARAJ
S/O BHEEMASHAPPA,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MALLALLI, TQ. SHAHAPUR, DISTRICT YADGIRI.
Digitally signed ...PETITIONER
by SHILPA R
TENIHALLI (BY SRI. BHARAMAGOUDA K. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
THE STATE THROUGH
WADAGERA POLICE STATION,
TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIR.
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1234
CRL.RP No. 200083 of 2018
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W
SECTION 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT OF SESSION JUDGE AT YADGIRI IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.10/2015 DATED 13.11.2018 AND THE JUDGMENT
OF JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, AT YADGIR IN J.C.NO.8/2014
DATED 04.12.2015 AND ACQUITTED THE REVISION
PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision is filed by the revision
petitioner/accused challenging the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by Juvenile Justice Board,
Yadagiri, in J.C.No.8/2014, dated 04.12.2015 and
confirmed in Crl.A.No.10/2015 passed by Sessions Judge,
Yadgiri, vide order dated 13.11.2018 by convicting the
juvenile offender for the offences punishable under
Sections 279 & 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short 'IPC') and under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
are referred with the original ranks occupied by them
before the Trial Court.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1234
3. The brief factual aspects leading to the case are
as under:
On 25.10.2013, at 3.00 p.m., the complainant was
standing in front of Ayyappa's hotel in order to have tea in
Mallalli village along with Nagappa & Shivaraya. It is
further alleged that at that time, the deceased father of
complainant was moving towards his house from the
outskirts of the village. Meanwhile, the juvenile in conflict
with law i.e. petitioner herein, rode a motor cycle bearing
No.KA-33/L-8239 in a rash and negligent manner and
knocked the deceased from the back side. As a result, the
deceased fell down and sustained head injuries.
Immediately, the complainant and others shifted him in a
private vehicle to Yadgiri Government Hospital and later
on, he was shifted to Raichur Government Hospital for
higher treatment. But by evening 6.00 'o' clock he
succumbed in the hospital. In this regard, the complainant
lodged a complaint. On the basis of the complaint, the
Investigating Officer registered the crime, visited the spot,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1234
conducted the spot mahazar, seized the vehicle and then
recorded the statements of witnesses. He has also got
examined the motor bike from motor vehicle inspector and
after obtaining the post mortem report, he found that
there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the
juvenile in conflict with law and submitted a charge sheet
against him for the offences punishable under Sections
279 & 304A of IPC as well as under Section 181 of the MV
Act.
4. Since the juvenile in conflict with law was a
minor, the matter was taken up by Juvenile Justice Board.
The juvenile was represented through his counsel by
appearing before the Juvenile Justice Board and was
enlarged on bail. He was also provided with prosecution
papers. The plea was recorded and he denied the same.
Thereafter, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of
the prosecution and prosecution has also placed reliance
on seven documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. After
conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1234
statement of juvenile in conflict with law was recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the same.
5. After hearing the arguments and after
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the
Juvenile Justice Board convicted the juvenile for the
offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC and
Section 181 of the MV Act. Juvenile Justice Board has
imposed sentence of fine of Rs.700/- for the offence
punishable under Section 279 of IPC and fine of Rs.100/-
for the offence under Section 181 of the MV Act with a
default clause. Juvenile Justice Board has also sentenced
him for imprisonment for a period of one year for the
offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC with a
direction that he shall be sent to juvenile home for serving
the sentence.
6. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by Juvenile Justice Board,
the revision petitioner herein approached Sessions Judge,
Yadgiri in Crl.A.No.10/2015. The learned Sessions Judge
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1234
after re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence,
allowed the appeal in part so far as it relates to imposition
of sentence of one year for the offence under Section 304A
of IPC. But confirmed the conviction in respect of other
offences and for the offence under Section 304A of IPC, he
reduced the sentence from one year to six months.
7. Being aggrieved by these concurrent findings,
the petitioner is before this Court by way of revision.
8. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for revision petitioner as well as learned HCGP for
the respondent-State. Perused the records.
9. The learned counsel appearing for revision
petitioner would contend that the witnesses are unable to
quote the vehicle number and none of the witnesses have
stated regarding rash and negligent act. Hence, he would
contend that the rash and negligent act was not at all
established, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice
and hence, he would seek for acquittal by allowing the
revision and by setting aside the impugned judgment of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1234
conviction and order of sentence passed by Juvenile
Justice Board and the lower appellate Court.
10. Alternatively he would contend that the offence
is said to have been committed while the petitioner was a
juvenile aged about 14 years and more than 10 years
have been lapsed and considering the age, now it is not
proper to sentence him to imprisonment for an act
committed while he was in juvenile and prayed that
sentence of imprisonment may by set aside by restricting
the conviction to the fine alone.
11. Per contra, the learned HCGP would submit that
the evidence of PW1 to PW4 clearly establish that the
accident is because of actionable negligence on the part of
the petitioner and he was not possessing driving licence.
He would also assert that the accused himself has taken
inconsistent stands regarding he not being present at the
accident spot by raising plea of alibi, but failed to prove
the said plea and his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
is completely silent in this regard. Hence, he would
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1234
contend that the defence raised is not acceptable one. He
would also contend that both the Courts below have
imposed reasonable sentence which does not call for any
interference and sought for dismissal of the revision
petition.
12. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, now the following point would arise for my
consideration:
"Whether the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by both the Courts below
is perverse, arbitrary and erroneous so as to call
for any interference by this Court?"
13. It is the specific assertion of the prosecution
that on 25.10.2013, at 3.00 p.m. in Mallalli village, in front
of the road situated in front of Muttyan Gudi, the juvenile
delinquent being a rider of motor cycle bearing registration
No.KA-33/L-8239 without driving licence drove it in a rash
and negligent manner and knocked the deceased
Bheemaraya son of Thippanna from the back side causing
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1234
severe injuries to him, who subsequently succumbed in
the hospital on the same day evening at 6.00 p.m. and
thereby it is alleged that he has committed the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC as well as
under Section 3 r/w Section 181 of the MV Act.
14. At the first instance, since the petitioner is a
minor, question of he obtaining driving licence does not
arise at all and as such, the offence under Section 3 r/w
Section 181 of the MV Act is proved in view of the age of
the petitioner itself.
15. PW1 is the complainant and in his evidence, he
deposed that about one year five months back, he was
standing near the hotel of Sahib and at that time, accused
rode his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and
knocked his father who was proceeding by the side of the
road, causing head injury to him, who subsequently
succumbed in the hospital. He further deposed that in this
regard he lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1. This witness
was cross-examined and cross-examination reveals
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1234
regarding personal disputes regarding communities.
Interestingly, a suggestion was made that when the
accident has occurred only four persons were present and
this suggestion itself discloses that accused has admitted
the accident. A contrary suggestion was again made that
the deceased fell from katta and suffered injuries. But this
suggestion is not forthcoming to all the witnesses and on
the contrary, the postmortem report is marked by
consent.
16. Further, during the course of the arguments, a
new defence was set up that the vehicle was never
involved in the accident. But admittedly, the vehicle was
seized and father of delinquent juvenile got it released by
executing an indemnity bond. A third inconsistent and
contrary defence was raised during cross-examination of
PW1 is regarding plea of alibi. It is suggested that when
the accident has occurred, the delinquent juvenile was in
Yadgiri and not at the spot. This defence is required to be
proved by the petitioner himself, but his 313 statement
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1234
discloses that it is completely silent. He has not led any
evidence to prove that he was in Yadgiri when the alleged
accident has taken place so as to probablize that his
presence at the spot is virtually impossible. But no such
evidence is lead.
17. PW.2 is the witness to the spot mahazar and he
has deposed regarding drawing of mahazar in his presence
and seizure of the motorcycle from the spot and though
this witness was cross-examined, nothing elicited so as to
impeach his evidence.
18. PW.3 - Ningappa and PW.4 - Shivaraya are the
eyewitnesses and they have also deposed as per the case
of the prosecution. During the cross examination of PW3,
again the plea of alibi was raised suggesting that the
juvenile delinquent was in Yadgir during the accident
period but the same suggestion was not at all made to
PW.4. Further, to PW.4 a suggestion was made that the
deceased fell from Katta and sustained injuries resulting in
his death, but no details were pleaded as to where this
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1234
accident has occurred. Interestingly, the same suggestion
was not made to PW.3. Hence, it is evident that the
juvenile delinquent is taking inconsistent and contrary
stands. PW.5 is another son of deceased, but, he was not
an eyewitness.
19. PWs.6 and 7 are the Investigating Officers and
during their cross examination, the accident was never
disputed and involvement of the petitioner or plea of alibi
was not put forward to these witnesses. Considering the
evidence on record and considering the inconsistent stand
taken by the accused and especially the defence of plea of
alibi raised by him, which he has failed to establish, an
adverse inference is required to be drawn as against him.
20. The evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 4 is inconsistent
and it establishes that the accident was because of
actionable negligence on the part of the juvenile
delinquent, which has resulted in the death of
Bheemaraya. Hence, the ingredients of the offences under
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1234
Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC are directly applicable to
the case in hand.
21. The Juvenile Justice Board as well as the
learned Sessions Judge have appreciated all these aspects
in a proper perspective and have rightly convicted the
juvenile delinquent for the offences punishable under
Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and Section 181 of the MV
Act. Hence, the judgment of conviction does not suffer
from any infirmity so as to call for any interference.
However, while convicting the accused, the Juvenile
Justice Board has imposed imprisonment for a period of
one year to the juvenile delinquent with a direction that he
shall be sent to special home for serving the sentence.
But, the learned Sessions Judge has reduced it to six
months instead of one year.
22. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the offences are committed during the
minority of the juvenile delinquent and now nearly 10
years have been lapsed from the date of the accident. He
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1234
would also submit that the juvenile delinquent was
required to send to special home and since now he has
attained the age of majority, he cannot be sent to special
home and it is not fair to send him to prison. Hence, he
submits that in the place of sentence, fine may be
imposed by awarding of compensation, which would serve
the purpose.
23. Considering these facts and circumstances and
considering the fact that the offences were committed by
the juvenile delinquent during his minority that too when
he was aged about 14 years, I am of the considered
opinion that it is not just and proper now to sentence him
for imprisonment as it is likely to affect his life. However,
at the same time, he cannot be let free in a casual way
and considering these facts and circumstances, he is
required to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- for the offence under
Section 304-A of IPC. Further, since has caused the death
of Bheemaraya, some compensation needs to be awarded
to the family of deceased and in my considered opinion,
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1234
Rs.50,000/- can be awarded as compensation under
Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
24. Considering these facts and circumstances, the
revision petition needs to be allowed in part so far as
sentence of imprisonment is concerned. Accordingly, the
point under consideration is required to be answered
partly in the affirmative. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
A. The revision petition is allowed in part.
B. The judgment of conviction passed by the
Juvenile Justice Board, Yadgiri in J.C.No.8/2014
and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Yadgiri in Criminal Appeal No.10/2015 stands
confirmed.
C. The sentence imposed in the form of fine for the
offence under Sections 279 of IPC and under
Section 181 of the MV Act stands confirmed.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1234
D. However, the sentence of imprisonment for the
offence under Section 304-A of IPC is set aside
and stands modified by imposing a fine of
Rs.15,000/- and in default, accused is required
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
six months.
E. The petitioner/juvenile delinquent, who has now
attained the age of majority is also directed to
pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the legal
heirs of deceased Bheemaraya under Section
357 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall be deposited
before the Trial court within eight weeks.
F. The Trial Court is directed to secure the presence
of the petitioner - accused/juvenile delinquent
for collection of fine and compensation amount.
G. Registry is directed to send the copy of this
order to the Trial Court along with the records.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DS/ SRT
