Karnataka High Court

Basappa S/O Shankarappa Awari vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2024

                                                 -1-
                                                       CRL.RP No.100251 of 2015



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                               BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
                         CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100251 OF 2015
                      BETWEEN:

                      BASAPPA S/O SHANKARAPPA AWARI
                      AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: K.S.R.T.C DRIVER,
                      R/O: CHIKKASINGANGUTTI,
                      TQ: HUNGUND,
                      NOW RESIDING AT K.S.R.T.C, DEPOT 2ND DIVISION,
                      MANGALURU.
                                                                       ...PETITIONER
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN                (BY SRI. R.H.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
KATTIMANI

Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI      AND:
Date: 2024.02.13
12:46:05 +0530        THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                      REPRESENTED BY THE SPP,
                      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                      DHARWAD BENCH.
                                                                   ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

                            THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W
                      401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORD FROM PRL CIVIL
                      JUDGE AND JMFC AT BAGALKOT IN C.C. NO. 285/2010 DATED
                      07/01/2011 AND THE RECORDS FROM II ADDL DISTRICT AND
                      SESSIONS JUDGE AT BAGALKOT IN CRL. APPL. NO. 22/2011
                      DATED 13.10.2015. AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED
                      IN CC NO. 285/2010 DATED 07/01/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRL
                      CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BAGALKOT AND ETC.,

                           THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
                      HEARD    THROUGH    PHYSICAL   HEARING   /    VIDEO
                      CONFERENCING HEARING AND RESERVED ON 08.11.2023
                      BEFORE   THE  DHARWAD    BENCH,  COMING    ON   FOR
                      PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH
                      OF BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY,
                      THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                -2-
                                     CRL.RP No.100251 of 2015



                          ORDER

1. This revision petition is filed being aggrieved by the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

07.01.2011 n C.C No.285/2010 on the file of the

Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Bagalkot and its

confirmation judgment and order dated 13.10.2015 in

Crl.A No.22/2011 on the file of the II Additional District

and Sessions Judge at Bagalkot.

2. The petitioner is the accused before the Trial Court and

appellant before the Appellate Court.

Brief facts of the case:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.11.2009 at

about 9.00 a.m., in front of Bagalkot District Hospital on

the Vidyagiri to Navanagar Public Road situated at

Bagalkot Traffic Police Station, the petitioner herein

being a driver of the KSRTC bus bearing its registration

No.KA.19.F.2664 drove the bus in rash and negligent

manner so as to endanger human life, without noticing

CWs.4 and 5 were getting down from the bus,

consequently, CW.5 fell down on the road and sustained

injuries and therefore, a case came to be registered

against the petitioner herein for the offences punishable

under Sections 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code (for

short 'IPC'). After investigation, the Jurisdictional Police

submitted the charge sheet for the said offences.

4. To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution

examined six witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and got marked

six documents as Exs.P1 to P6. Both the Courts below

concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty of the

offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has

preferred this revision petition.

5. Heard Sri.R.H.Angadi, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri.Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara, learned HCGP for

the respondent - State.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the concurrent findings recorded by the

Courts below are perverse, illegal and the same is liable

to be set aside.

7. It is further submitted that the petitioner being a driver

of the bus had to follow the signal given by the

conductor. On receiving the said signal, the petitioner

moved the bus, however, he was not aware that CWs.4

and 5 were getting down from the bus. Such being the

fact, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed

negligent act and moved the bus and caused injuries to

the passengers. This aspect should have been

considered by the Courts below while appreciating the

same.

8. It is further submitted that none of the witnesses have

stated that the petitioner moved the bus when CW.5 was

getting down. All the witnesses including CW.5 have

admitted that after CW.5 getting down still some

passengers were required to be getting down from the

bus. Such being the fact, the petitioner herein had

moved the bus, consequently, CW.5 fell down which is

incorrect and the Courts below have erred in arriving at

a conclusion that CW.5 sustained injuries as a result of

negligence act of the petitioner. Making such submission,

the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the

petition.

9. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent - State

vehemently justified the concurrent findings of the

conviction passed by the Courts below and submitted

that the findings of the Courts below in recording the

conviction are appropriate. The petitioner being a driver

of the bus should have taken proper care before he could

move the vehicle. Without noticing the passengers who

were getting down from the bus, moved negligently.

Consequently, CW.5 has sustained injuries. Therefore,

the findings of the Courts below in recording the

conviction are appropriate and there is no infirmity in the

said order. Making such submission, the learned HCGP

for the respondent - State prays to dismiss the petition.

10. After having heard the learned counsel for the respective

parties and also perused the concurrent findings of the

Courts below, it appears that CWs.4 and 5 were traveling

in the said bus to go to their college. On fateful day i.e.,

on 12.11.2009 CW.5 fell down from the bus and

sustained injuries.

11. PW.1 is the complainant. According to him, he along with

his friends namely CWs.4 and 5 were boarded the bus to

go to the college. When the bus reached the bus stand

near Government Hospital, PW.1 along with PW.3 and

PW.4 were getting down to go to college. By the time,

the bus said to have moved, consequently, CW.5-PW.3

sustained injuries to her head. A suggestion was made

that PW.3 fell down from the bus while getting down

even though the bus was not moving, the same has been

denied by PW.1. However, he has admitted that even

PW.3 got down from the bus and sustained injuries still

some more passengers were required to be getting down

from the bus. By considering the said admission, it can

be inferred that the petitioner has not committed any

negligent act. This aspect should have been considered

by the Courts below while appreciating the evidence on

record.

12. Similarly, PW.3 and PW.4 who were injured in the said

incident have also admitted that some more passengers

were about to be getting down from the bus after PW.3

and PW.4 have got down from the bus.

13. It is needless to say that the Investigating Officer or the

prosecution has not made any efforts to record the

statement of other inmates of the bus. The Investigating

Officer failed to record the statement of the conductor of

the bus which appears to be insignificant and

inappropriate. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 which

appears to be tainted and their evidence is not

acceptable. The Trial Court failed to take note of the

same and recorded the conviction and the Appellate

Court confirmed the same by accepting the findings

recorded by the Trial Court appears to be erroneous and

illegal.

14. To prove the rash and negligent driving in light of the

facts and circumstances of a given case, it is a fact

incapable of being construed or seen in isolation. It must

be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. A

person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be

held responsible for the act as well as for the result. It

may not be always possible to determine with reference

to the speed of a vehicle whether a person was driving

rashly and negligently. Both these acts presuppose an

abnormal conduct. Even when one is driving a vehicle at

a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would

amount to 'rash and negligent driving' within the

meaning of the language of Section 279 IPC. That is why

the legislature in its wisdom has used the words 'manner

so rash or negligent as to endanger human life'.

15. In the present case, the witnesses are consistent in their

evidence that even after PW.3 got down from the bus

still more passengers were required to be getting down

from the bus. Though they have stated that the bus was

moved before they could get down from the bus, there is

no acceptable evidence in that regard and the Courts

below ought not to have considered their evidence to

prove the case. In the absence of the evidence

regarding rashness and negligent driving, the conviction

recorded for the same which amounts to abuse of

process and the Courts below have committed error in

recording the conviction and appreciating the same in

the manner unknown to the law. Therefore, the same is

required to be set aside.

16. 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      07.01.2011       passed     in

C.C.No.285/2010 by the Court of Principal Civil

Judge and JMFC at Bagalkot and judgment and

order dated 13.10.2015 passed in Crl.A.

No.22/2011 by the Court of II Additional District

and Sessions Judge at Bagalkot are set aside.