Karnataka High Court
Krishnamurthy Shridhar Naik vs The State By The Sub-Inspector on 19 February, 2024
-1-
CRL.RP No.100298 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100298 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
KRISHNAMURTHY SHRIDHAR NAIK
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: BOODAGUTTI, VANDANE,
TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: U.K-581355.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.G.KADADAKATTI AND
SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE STATE BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SIDDAPUR,
REPRESENTATIVE BY ITS ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W
SEC 401 OF CR.P.C SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS & TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
I-ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, U.K.KARWAR SITTING
AT SIRSI IN CRL. APPEAL NO.:1/2014 BY CONFIRMING THE
ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE I CLASS AT SIDDAPUR DATED 04.12.2013
IN C.C NO.663/2012 P/U/S 279, 337, 338, 304-A OF IPC BY
ALLOWING THE PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING / VIDEO
CONFERENCING HEARING AND RESERVED ON 23.11.2023
BEFORE THE DHARWAD BENCH, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH
-2-
CRL.RP No.100298 of 2019
OF BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This Revision Petition is filed being aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
04.12.2013 in C.C No.663/2012 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate I Class at Siddapur and its confirmation
judgment and order dated 23.10.2019 in Crl.A
No.1/2014 on the file of the I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, U.K. Karwar sitting at Sirsi.
2. The petitioner is the accused before the Trial Court and
the appellant before the Appellate Court.
Brief facts of the case:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 30.05.2012 at
about 10.45 a.m., the petitioner herein had driven his
ten wheeler Truck bearing its registration No.KA-42-2805
in a rash and negligent manner while negotiating a curve
dashed to the motorcycle and Bajaj M-80 vehicle, as a
result of which the rider of the Bajaj M-80 vehicle
bearing its registration No.KA-14-H/3536 and pillion
rider of the motorcycle bearing its registration No.KA-
42/J-9092 sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot.
The rider of the motor cycle and his children have
sustained simple and grievous injuries. The Truck after
hitting the two wheelers fell into the ditch and turned
turtle. A complaint came to be registered by the
complainant in that regard. The respondent police have
registered a case in Crime No.82/2012 for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of
the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). The investigation
completed and charge sheet came to be filed.
4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution
has examined 12 witnesses as PWs.1 to 12 and got
marked Exs.P1 to P14 and also identified material
objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3. On the other hand, the
petitioner herein got marked Ex.D1 as his defence. The
Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence on record, recorded the conviction and on
appeal, the Appellate Court confirmed the said judgment
of conviction passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this
Revision Petition.
5. Heard Sri.S.G.Kadadakatti and Sri.Lingesh V.Kattemane,
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 prosecution examined PW.4 who is
stated to be the complainant and in the complaint he has
stated that on 30.05.2012 at about 10.45 a.m., when he
was proceeding towards Mavingundi to Gerusappa on his
motorcycle, in front of the petitioner, a family was
proceeding on a motorcycle and behind there was a
Bajaj M-80 vehicle which was moving towards the same
direction. PW.4 was little behind from the front vehicle,
when they reached Malemane from the other side, a
lorry came in rash and negligent manner and hit
motorcycle and Bajaj M-80, the driver of the lorry lost
his control, consequently it fell into ditch. Contrary to
the said aspect, PW.6 has stated that his wife and
children were waiting for bus at Malemane. By that
time, the rider of Bajaj M-80 was proceeding towards
Mavingundi to Honnavar on the opposite direction and
the lorry came in a rash and negligent manner and ran
over his wife and hit Bajaj M-80, due to which, his wife
and the rider of Bajaj-M80 were succumbed to injuries.
Therefore, the theory of accident is doubtful and the
Courts below have failed to take note of the
contradictions and wrongly came to conclusion.
7. It is further submitted that the place of accident is also
doubtful. PW.4 says that the accident occurred in a
curve place of Malemane between Mavingundi to
Honnavar. However, spot mahazar which is marked as
Ex.P1 shows that the accident occurred near Malemane
and tar road curve. As per Ex.P2, the place of accident
shows as straight road, therefore, the place of accident
itself is doubtful.
8. It is further submitted that the Motor Vehicle Inspector
who is examined as PW.7 and submitted his report as
per Ex.P9. He has stated that as on the date of the
accident i.e., 30.05.2012, he has conducted inspection
on 04.06.2012 after lapse of five days and spot report
cannot be considered as gospel truth. Therefore, the
said report ought not to have been considered by the
Courts below. The contradiction between evidence of
PWs.4 and 6 ought to have been considered by the
Courts below while analyzing the evidence. Having failed
to consider the same, resulted in passing the impugned
judgments which are required to be set aside. Making
such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner
prays to allow the petition.
9. Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently for the respondent
- State justified the concurrent findings and submitted
that the petitioner herein being a driver of the lorry
driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Bajaj
M-80 vehicle and killed a woman who was standing near
the bus stop and fell into the ditch. The petitioner was
driving his vehicle negligently, as a result of which, the
accident occurred. Therefore, it is not appropriate to
interfere with the said findings recorded by the Courts
below. Making such submission, the learned HCGP prays
to dismiss the petition.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the findings of the Courts
below, it appears that the Courts below have
concurrently held that the petitioner found guilty of the
offences stated supra. However, the Courts below
whether rightly appreciated the evidence of all the
witnesses or rightly recorded the conviction is a matter
to be considered in this Revision having regard to the
scope and ambit of the Revisional Jurisdiction.
11. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner being
a driver of the lorry bearing its registration No.KA-42-
2805 was proceeding from Honnavar towards
Mavingundi is stated to have driven his vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed the Honda Shine
motorcycle bearing its registration No.KA-47-J-9092 and
also caused accident to another scooter bearing its
registration No.KA-15-H-3536 which is Bajaj M-80
motorcycle, as a result of which, the rider of the Bajaj M-
80 sustained injuries and died and the pillion rider of
Honda Shine motorcycle also died in the accident.
12. PWs.1 and 2 are the witnesses to Exs.P1 and P2 which is
spot panchanama and preparation of spot sketch, they
have supported the case of the prosecution. PW.2 being
an eyewitness to the incident has not supported the case
of the prosecution. However, the prosecution has treated
him as hostile. Nothing has been elicited even though he
has been cross-examined. PW.4 being an independent
eye witness has supported the case of the prosecution
and deposed in consonance with the statement made
before the police. According to him, after the incident,
at about 2.00 p.m., he is said to have lodged a complaint
to the Jurisdictional police. The said complaint is marked
as Ex.P4, however, he has stated that he has not seen
the driver of the vehicle. PW.5 the relative of the
deceased said to have been to the place where the
accident occurred after receiving the information. On
seeing the accident, he found that two motorcycles have
been damaged and the lorry fell into the ditch and it was
turned turtle. He came to know that the person who was
driving the vehicle was the petitioner herein namely
Sri.Krishnamurthy.
13. PW.6 being an eyewitness to the incident has
categorically supported the case of the prosecution and
stated that the driver of the lorry has driven the said
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and also killed
two persons. Even though this witness has been
subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing has
been elicited to disbelieve his version. In fact, he has
stated in his evidence that he has seen the driver of the
vehicle who caused accident on the date of the accident.
14. PW.7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who conducted
inspection of the vehicle involved in the said accident
and found that the accident occurred not due to
mechanical defect and submitted his IMV report as per
Ex.P9.
15. After considering the overall facts and circumstances and
evidence of all the witnesses, it appears that the
evidence of PWs.4 and 6 are relevant and they are
consistent in their evidence not only with regard to the
accident but also the manner in which the lorry was
being driven on the date of accident. On reading of the
evidence of these two witnesses, it appears that the
petitioner herein absolutely committed negligence in
driving the said vehicle. Therefore, I am of the
considered opinion that the Courts below have rightly
and appropriately recorded the conviction which is not
required to be interfered with.
16. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed
to pass the following:
- 10 -
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
un
