Karnataka High Court

Ramesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2024

                                                -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC:1814
                                                      CRL.RP No. 614 of 2017




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                          DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
                                            BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 614 OF 2017


                   BETWEEN:


                   RAMESH
                   S/O DEVAPPA
                   AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
                   R/AT THOGARSI VILLAGE
                   SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
                   SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577428
                                                               ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. ANITHA H R., ADVOCATE)
                   AND:


                   STATE OF KARNATAKA
                   REP. BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                   TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, BHADRAVATHI
Digitally signed   REP BY SPP., HIGH COURT BUILDING,
by SANDHYA S       BENGALURU - 560001.
Location: High                                                ...RESPONDENT
Court of
Karnataka
                   (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP.)
                       THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
                   TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL
                   JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BHADRAVATHI IN C.C.NO.3184/2013
                   DATED 28.04.2015 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
                   THE IV ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., SHIMOGA, SITTING AT
                   BHADRAVATHI IN CRL.A.NO.144/2015 DATED 29.02.2016 AND
                   ALLOW THIS PETITION.

                        THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
                   DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                    -2-
                                                NC: 2024:KHC:1814
                                           CRL.RP No. 614 of 2017




                                 ORDER

The revision petitioner/accused has preferred this

revision petition against the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 28.04.2015 passed in

C.C.No.3184/2013 by the Court of the I Additional Civil

Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi (hereinafter referred to as

'Trial Court' for short) which is confirmed by the judgment

dated 29.02.2016 passed in Crl.Appeal No.144/2015 by

the Court of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Shimoga, Sitting at Bhadravathi (hereinafter referred to as

'Appellate Court' for short).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this

revision petition are referred to as per their status and

rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are

that on 22.05.2013 at about 6.30 a.m., while father-in-law

of the complainant namely Dastagir Sab was crossing road

along with his bicycle at Krishnappa Circle on N.H.206

Bhadravathi towards Bommabakatte Road, accused being

NC: 2024:KHC:1814

the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-15-M-2318, came

in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed

against the bicycle of said Dastagir Sab, due to which, the

said Dastagir Sab sustained grievous injuries on his head

and other parts of the body and was taken to hospital,

but succumbed to injuries. Thus, the accused has

committed offence punishable under Section 279 and

304(A) of Indian Penal Code.

4. After taking cognizance, the Trial Court has

registered the case in C.C.No.3184/2013 and summons

were issued to the accused. In pursuance of summons,

the accused has appeared before the Court and enlarged

on bail. Charge framed and read over and explained to

the accused. Having understood the same accused

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, 8 witnesses

were examined as PWs.1 to 8 and 10 documents were got

marked as Exs.P1 to P10. On closure of prosecution side

NC: 2024:KHC:1814

evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was

recorded and the accused has totally denied the evidence

of prosecution witnesses and he has not adduced any

evidence on his behalf. Having heard on both sides, the

Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) Indian Penal

Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the

commission of offence under Section 279 of Indian Penal

Code, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay a

fine of Rs.5,000/- for the commission of offence

punishable under Section 304(A) Indian Penal Code, in

default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Being aggrieved

by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the

accused preferred an appeal before the IV Addl. District

and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, Sitting at Bhadravathi and

the same came to be dismissed on 29.02.2016. Being

aggrieved by this judgment, the revision

NC: 2024:KHC:1814

petitioner/accused has preferred this present revision

petition.

6. Learned counsel of the revision petitioner

submits that the order passed by both the Courts below

are contrary to law, facts and probabilities of the case.

Both the Courts have not appreciated the evidence on

record in accordance with law and facts. The legal

representatives of the deceased claimed compensation

before the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal and the Tribunal

has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,84,000/-

with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till

realization. The petitioner was driving the vehicle

cautiously, there is no accident in his driving in 6 years

and this accident has caused due to rash and negligent

driving of the vehicle by the deceased without following

traffic rules, suddenly he came to road, due to that

accident was occurred. On all these grounds, he sought to

allow this appeal.

NC: 2024:KHC:1814

7. As against this, the learned High Court

Government Pleader submits that both the Courts have

properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance

with law and facts and that there are no grounds to

interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and

order of sentence passed by the Trial Court which is

confirmed by the Appellate Court. On this ground, he

sought to dismiss the appeal.

8. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the

following points would arise for my consideration:

i. Whether the Trial Court has committed error in convicting the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code which is confirmed by the Appellate Court?

ii. What order?

9. My answer to the above points are as under:

Point No.1: in the affirmative

Point No.2: as per final order

NC: 2024:KHC:1814

Regarding point No.1:

10. I have carefully examined the material placed

before the Court.

It is the case of prosecution that on 22.05.2013 at

about 6.30 a.m., while father-in-law of the complainant

namely Dastagir Sab was crossing road along with his

bicycle at Krishnappa Circle on N.H.206 Bhadravathi

towards Bommabakatte Road, accused being the driver of

the car bearing Reg.No.KA-15-M-2318, came in rash and

negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the

bicycle of said Dastagir Sab, due to which, the said

Dastagir Sab sustained grievous injuries on his head and

other parts of the body and was taken to hospital, but

succumbed to injuries. Thus, the accused has committed

offence punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of

Indian Penal Code. To prove the guilt of the accused, 8

witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 8 and 10 documents

were got marked as Exs.P1 to P10.

NC: 2024:KHC:1814

11. Ex.P1 - contents of the complaint reveals that

the accident occurred while the deceased was crossing the

bypass road near Krishnappa Circle in his bicycle.

12. PW.1-Shafiulla who is the son-in-law of the

deceased has deposed in his evidence that on 22.05.2013,

he along with his friend Babusab were takeing tea in the

canteen near Krishnappa Circle at about 6.30 a.m., the

deceased Dastagir Sab was coming from Bhadravathi to

Bommanakatte, when he came near Krishnappa Circle, the

driver of the omni car dashed to his father-in-law. As a

result, he fell on the road from bicycle and sustained

injuries on his hands, legs and also on his head. Then the

PW.1 and his friend Babu shifted him to Government

Hospital, Bhadravathi, as per the advice of hospital

authorities, PW.1 shifted the injured to Mc.Gann Hospital.

Thereafter, the injured shifted to Vatsalya Hospital,

Shimoga at 12.00 p.m. At about 2.30 p.m., the injured

died in the hospital. Therefore, PW.1 lodged a complaint

before the Police as per Ex.P1 and on next day, the police

NC: 2024:KHC:1814

conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2 and prepared sketch as

per Ex.P4. Further, he stated that at the time of accident,

the deceased crossed the road and he was near

Bommanakatte. This witness was treated as partly hostile

witness and cross-examined by the APP. During the

course of cross-examination, he has denied that he has

lodged the complaint at 12.00 p.m. and also denied that

the deceased died at 11.00 a.m.

13. PW.2 - Babu has deposed in his evidence that

he knows the deceased Dastagir Sab and PW.1 - Shafiulla.

That on 22.05.2013, he and PW.1-Shafiulla were waiting

for Dastgir Sab to go to work near Bhadravathi bypass

road i.e. Krishnappa Circle, then at that time, Dastagir Sab

was coming from Bhadravathi to Bommanakatte Road in

bicycle, then the Maruthi Omni vehicle coming from

Shimoga side in high speed and dashed to Dastagir Sab

bicycle. As a result, he fell and sustained injuries on his

hands, leg and on his head. Immediately, he and PW.1-

Shafiulla shifted the injured to Government Hospital,

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:1814

Bhadravathi in autorickshaw. Then as per the advice of

doctor, the injured shifted to Mc.Gann Hospital and

thereafter shifted to Vatsalya Hospital and the injured

succumbed to injuries at 11.00 a.m. At the time of

accident, the deceased Dastagir Sab has already crossed

the road.

14. PW.3 - Venkatesh and PW.4- Lohith have

deposed as to the spot mahazar as per Ex.P2.

15. PW.5 - Prakash who is the owner of the

offending vehicle has deposed as to the execution of

indemnity bond as per Ex.P7.

16. PW.6 - M.H.Kambli, ASI and PW.8 -

Thirumalesh, PSI have deposed as to their respective

investigation.

17. PW.7- Pavithra.K., Motor Vehicle Inspector has

deposed as to the examination of the vehicle and issuance

of IMV report as per Ex.P10.

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:1814

18. A careful examination of the entire evidence on

record, it is crystal clear from the contents of complaint

i.e. Ex.P1 that the accident occurred while the deceased

was crossing the road in his bicycle. But the evidence of

material witnesses who have witnessed the incident i.e.

PWs.1 and 2 have not deposed in their evidence that the

accident occurred while deceased was crossing the road in

his bicycle. On the contrary, they have deposed in their

evidence that the deceased was already crossed the road

and he was near Bommanakatte. The contents of

complaint at Ex.P1 are not consistent with the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2. Admittedly, the deceased is the father-in-

law of PW.1 and PW.2 is the close friend of PW.1.

19. The contents of complaint and First Information

Report at Exs.P1 and P9 reveals that the deceased passed

away at 11.30 a.m. and PW.1 has lodged the complaint on

22.05.2013 at 12.45 p.m. On receiving the complaint, the

police have registered the case in crime No.49/2013

against the accused for the commission of offence

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:1814

punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal

Code and submitted First Information Report to the Court

at 5.00 p.m. But PWs.1 and 2 have deposed in their

evidence that they have shifted the injured to Government

Hospital, Bhadravathi, then as per the advice of the

doctor, they shifted the injured to Mc.Gann Hospital and

thereafter they shifted to private hospital at Shimoga for

higher treatment. At about 2.30 p.m., the deceased

passed away. This evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who have

deposed in their examination-in-chief itself reveals that

there is no consistency as to the time of death of

deceased.

20. Ex.P2 - spot mahazar reveals that the accident

occurred in NH No.206 tar road at Bhadravathi-

Bommanakatte road in Bhadravathi new town. The said

mahazar reveals that the width of the road is 20 feet. The

contents of Ex.P2 also reveals that while the deceased was

crossing the road in bicycle, the accident has occurred but

the same is not substantiated by the evidence of PWs.1

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC:1814

and 2 as to the time of death of deceased and place of

occurrence which will create doubt about the presence of

PWs.1 and 2 at relevant point of time. If really PWs.1 and

2 were present on the spot and witnesses this incident,

they would have deposed as to the contents of complaint

at Ex.P1. Hence, their evidence cannot be believed.

21. The evidence of PW.7 and contents of IMV

report at Ex.P10 reveals that the Maruthi Omni car bearing

Reg.No.KA-15-M-2318 sustained with following damages:

(i) left hand rear view mirror broken

(ii) left hand side front door slightly pressed inward

If really the driver of the Maruthi Omni car drove the same

in a high speed and dashed against the deceased bicycle,

the front side of the car would have sustain with damages.

But no damages are found towards front side of the said

car but there is slight press towards left hand side of the

front door. The contents of spot mahazar at Ex.P2 reveals

that the old bicycle frame was bent. This evidence of

prosecution witness reveals that without observing the car,

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC:1814

the deceased i.e., the rider of the bicycle try to cross the

road by that time, the accident was occurred. As a result,

the left side of the car was damaged. However, PWs.1

and 2 have mechanically deposed that the driver of the car

drove the same in a high speed which is not consistent

with the facts of the case. Apart from this, PWs.1 and 2

material witnesses have not deposed as to the rash and

negligent act of the driver of the offending car. Viewed

from any angle, there is no cogent, corroborative,

clinching and trustworthy evidence in the prosecution

witnesses. Both the Courts have not appreciated the

evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and

the Trial Court has committed an error in convicting the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 279 and

304(A) of Indian Penal Code which is confirmed by the

Appellate Court. Hence, I answer point No.1 in

affirmative.

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC:1814

Regarding point No.2:

22. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal revision petition is allowed. ii. Judgment dated 28.04.2015 passed in C.C.No.2184/2013 by the Court of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi which is confirmed the judgment dated 29.02.2016 passed in Crl.Appeal No.144/2015 by the Court of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, sitting at Bhadravathi, are set aside. iii. Revision petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code.