Karnataka High Court
Ajmal Ahamed vs State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8287
CRL.RP No. 647 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 647 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
AJMAL AHAMED,
S/O NAZEER AHAMED,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS LORRY DRIVER,
G.K. MOHALLA,
CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN - 571 313.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.DEVI PRASAD K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KUDERU POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
Digitally signed by B
K THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.JAYARAM SIDDI, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.98/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM COURT,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DATED.31.01.2013 AND CONFIRMED IN
CRL.A.NO.15/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE DIST. & SESSIONS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8287
CRL.RP No. 647 of 2014
JUDGE AT CHAMARAJA NAGAR DATED.25.07.2014. AND
ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of Cr.P.C by the petitioner who is convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A)
of IPC read with Section 134(a) and (b) of the IMV Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.12.2006
at 4:30 p.m. when the complainant along with his wife,
daughters and other relatives were waiting at Navilur Bus stop
to go to T.Narasipura. At that time, a lorry came and they all
boarded the said lorry. The driver of the said lorry drove the
lorry in high speed and while proceeding further from Navilur,
all of a sudden the said lorry overturned and in the said
accident, the complainant and his relatives sustained simple
and grievous injuries and three inmates including cleaner of the
lorry succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident.
3. The prosecution to prove its case examined PW.1 to
PW.23 and got marked the documents at Ex.p1 to Ex.p.39.
4. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on
record held that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving by the accused, and convicted the
NC: 2024:KHC:8287
petitioner/accused for the said offences, and the same was
confirmed by the learned District Judge. Hence, this Revision
Petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the Trial
Court records.
6. Perusal of Trial Court records indicated that the
inmates of the lorry were examined as PW.2 to PW.22. A
perusal of evidence of the said witnesses indicated that except
PW.6 all the witnesses in their cross examination have
categorically admitted that they were seated behind the cabin,
and they have not seen the driver of the vehicle. PW.6 who is
one of the injured witnesses, categorically stated that, at the
time of boarding the lorry, and at that time of accident he had
seen the accused driving the lorry and nothing is elicited in
cross examination to disbelieve his statement. Though the
other witnesses have not substantiated that they have not seen
the driver since they were sitting behind the cabin, however,
the evidence of PW.6 has remained unchallenged, and PW.6
who is the injured witness and his statement can be held to be
trustworthy and credible. Therefore, the prosecution has
established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt.
7. The accident had taken place on 14.12.2006, and
the petitioner/accused is aged about 55 years as of today, and
he is survived by his wife and three children and the family is
NC: 2024:KHC:8287
dependent on petitioner for meeting their day-to day
requirements, and if the petitioner is sentenced to undergo
imprisonment as ordered by the learned Magistrate, the family
would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Therefore, it
would suffice if the conviction of the petitioner is confirmed,
and the petitioner is directed to pay fine instead of undergoing
sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of
IPC, since the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC is
punishable with two years of imprisonment or with fine or both.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment dated
31.01.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and
CJM, Chamarajanagara in C.C.No.98/2007 and
confirmed by the District and Sessions Judge,
Chamarajanagara in Crl.A No.15/2013 insofar it
relates to convicting the petitioner for the offences
punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304(A)
is confirmed. However, the order sentencing the
petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 6 months, 3 months 8 months and one
year respectively for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC is set
aside and the petitioner/accused is sentenced to pay
a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards fine to the
Government.
NC: 2024:KHC:8287
iii. The fine amount to be deposited within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. Failing which, the order
sentencing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment
stands revived.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RKA
