Karnataka High Court
Ravi B V vs State Of Karnataka on 3 June, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:18734
CRL.RP No. 9 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 9 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
RAVI B.V. S/O VENKATESHAIAH,
AGE 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.133,
SUBRAMANYAPURA,
BENGALURU CITY - 560 061.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GAURAV S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.KEMPARAJU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY CPI SRIRANGAPATANA CIRCLE P.S.,
SRIRANGAPATANA, MANDYA DISTRICT.
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
Digitally signed BENGALURU - 560 001.
by R ...RESPONDENT
MANJUNATHA
Location: HIGH (BY SRI.CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.08.2020 PASSED BY THE
HONBLE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MANDYA IN CRL.A.NO.5024/2018 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 04.10.2018
PASSED BY THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
SRIRANGAPATANA IN C.C.NO.10/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279,
304A OF IPC AND 187 OF MV ACT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:18734
CRL.RP No. 9 of 2021
ORDER
Heard Sri. Gaurav.S., learned counsel for Sri. Kemparaju,
learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Channappa
Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent-State.
2. The petitioner-accused who has been convicted for
the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC
read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in
C.C.No.10/2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Srirangapatana, challenged the same before the III
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya Sitting at
Srirangapatna in Crl.A.No.5024/2018, wherein the order of
conviction and sentence came to be confirmed, has preferred
the present revision petition challenging the orders passed by
the learned trial Magistrate and learned District Judge.
3. The facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the revision petition are as under:
The complaint averment before the trial Court reveal that
on 02.10.2016 at about 9.40 a.m., near Shanidevara Temple
Circle on Bengaluru-Mysuru road, Ganangur Village,
NC: 2024:KHC:18734
Srirangapatna Taluk, accused being the driver of the Car
bearing No.KA.05.AG.0716 drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the rider of the
motorcycle bearing No.KA-09-EJ-3048.
4. Because of the impact of the accident, rider of the
motorcycle by name Raju fell down and suffered serious
injuries. The complainant-CW.1 and CW.2 who were near the
spot, immediately took steps to shift the injured to the
Government Hospital, Srirangapatna for treatment and later on
he was shifted to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru for higher medical care.
5. Despite the best medical treatment, because of the
impact of the accidental injuries sustained by Raju, he
succumbed to the injuries and therefore, the complainant
sought for action against the revision petitioner-accused.
6. Police after registering the case, conducted
thorough investigation and filed charge sheet against the
accused.
7. Presence of the accused was secured before the
trial Court and charges were framed. Accused pleaded not
guilty and therefore trial was held. In order to prove the case
NC: 2024:KHC:18734
of the prosecution, prosecution in all examined seven witnesses
comprising of the complainant, eye-witness, mahazar witnesses
and Investigation Officer.
8. Prosecution in order to prove its case also placed on
record 20 material documents which were exhibited and
marked as Exs.P1 to P20 comprising of complaint, spot
mahazar, sketch, photograph of the incident, P.M.Report,
Inquest Mahazar, Police Notice and request letter and
indemnity bond.
9. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution
evidence, learned trial Judge recorded the statement of the
accused as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,
wherein accused has denied all the incriminating circumstances
including the accident.
10. Accused did not choose to place any evidence on his
behalf nor filed any written submissions as is contemplated
under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, learned trial
Magistrate heard the matter in detail and on appreciation of the
material evidence on record, convicted the accused for the
aforesaid offences and sentenced as under:
NC: 2024:KHC:18734
"The accused is hereby convicted acting U/S 255(2)
of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/S 279 and 304(A)
of I.P.C and Sec. 187 of M.V.Act.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for 3 months and shall pay a fine of
Rs.800/- for the offence punishable U/S 279 of I.P.C. In
default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for further 15 days.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year and shall pay a fine of
Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable U/S 304(A) of I.P.C.
In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for further 3 months.
The accused shall pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the
offence punishable U/S 187 of M.V.Act, in default of
payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment
for 10 days.
All the sentences run concurrently."
11. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and
sentence passed thereon, the accused preferred an appeal
before the District Court, Srirangapatna in Crl.A.No.5024/2018.
12. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after
securing the trial Court records, heard the parties in detail and
by order dated 29.08.2020, dismissed the appeal filed by the
NC: 2024:KHC:18734
accused. Thereafter, the accused is before this Court in this
revision petition on the following grounds:
• The petitioner submits that, the judgment and order of
conviction passed by the trial court is not sustainable
either under the law and the facts of the case.
• The petitioner further submits that, the learned trial judge
further failed to appreciate the material placed on record
and the learned trial judge only on the imaginary basis
came to conclusion by holding that the prosecution has
proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt against the
petitioner is not sustainable either in law and facts of the
case, hence on the very ground itself the judgment and
order of conviction passed by the trial court and
confirmed by the appellate court is liable to be set aside
by allowing this petition.
• The petitioner further submits that, mere reading of
entire evidence is very clear that, there was contradiction
and omissions in their evidence, hence on these point are
also not considered by the trial Court, hence the
interference of this Hon'ble Court is required.
• The petitioner further submits that, the learned trial judge
further failed to appreciate that by overall considering the
entire evidence is not proved the case of the prosecution,
and the trial judge only on the basis of imaginary came to
conclusion by holding that the prosecution has proved the
case beyond all reasonable doubt is illegal against the
principles of appreciation of evidence, hence on the very
NC: 2024:KHC:18734
ground itself the judgment and order passed by the trial
Court is illegal and confirmed by the appellate Court same
is liable to be set aside by allowing this petition.
• The petitioner further submits that, mere reading of the
evidence of Pw-1 is deposed in his chief examination is
that, the petitioner did not present in the occurrence of
incident and same is identified in the police station and in
his cross examination is stated that the petitioner stand in
the accident place, hence there is contradiction statement
given the pw-1 before the trial court, hence on these
points are not appreciated by the trial Court, hence on
the very ground itself the judgment and order of
conviction passed by the court below and confirmed by
the appellate court is liable to be set aside by allowing
this petition.
• The petitioner further submits that, mere reading of the
evidence of Pw-2 is deposed in his chief examination is
that, the petitioner did not present in the occurrence of
incident and pw-2 did not identified the petitioner, hence
the prosecution story its create some doubts, hence on
the very ground itself the judgment and order of
conviction passed by the court below and confirmed by
the appellate court is liable to be set aside by allowing
this petition.
• The petitioner further submits that, the prosecution story
is that the petitioner drive the offending car, but there is
evidence adduce on the part of the prosecution that there
was negligence on the part of the petitioner moreover
nowhere stated who is the driver of the offending vehicle,
NC: 2024:KHC:18734
hence on the very ground itself the judgment and order of
conviction passed by the court below and confirmed by
the appellate court is liable to be set aside by allowing
this petition.
• The petitioner further submits that, according to the
prosecution story Pw-1 and Pw-2 are the eye witness to
the incident, but these witness are the interested witness
and several contradictions are there and these evidence
not corroborate to the prosecution story, hence the
evidence of Pw-1 and Pw-2 is inconsistent and the
presence of the Pw-1 and 2 at the time of incident its
create some doubt, hence on the very ground itself the
judgment and order of conviction passed by the court
below and confirmed by the appellate court is liable to be
set aside by allowing this petition.
• The petitioner further submits that, from overall
considering the evidence on record does not make out
any case against the petitioner and the learned trial judge
without considering the same came to conclusion, hence
or otherwise the reasoning the trial court is illegal and
against to the principles of fair trial.
• The petitioner further submits that, the petitioner has
preferred this petition with in the period of limitation.
• The petitioner further submits that, the petitioner crave
for kind indulgence to permit him to raise the additional
grounds at the time of hearing of the above petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:18734
• The petitioner submits that, the petitioner has not filed
any other appeal either before this Hon'ble court or any
other court of law on the similar cause of action.
13. Sri. Gaurav, learned counsel representing
Sri. Kemparaju, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating
the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently
contended that the accused is not a professional driver and
Accident spot being a slopped road and because of the
negligence attributable to the rider of the motorcycle, the
accident has occurred and there is no negligence on the part of
the accused for cause of the accident.
14. He pointed out that the Sketch produced and
marked by the prosecution vide Ex.P3 itself amply establishes
the road condition and evidences of PWs.1 and 2 are hardly
sufficient to attribute the negligence on the accused and
material evidence placed on record by the prosecution is not
sufficient enough to establish all the ingredients of the offences
under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC read with Section 187 of
the M.V.Act, and thus sought for allowing the revision petition.
15. He also pointed out that the sentence of one year
for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC is on the higher
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18734
side and regard to the attendant circumstances and also the
fact that the accused was aged 26 years as on the date of
accident and has got a family to be maintained and thus sought
for allowing the revision petition.
16. Per contra, learned HCGP opposes the revision
grounds by contending that the trial Magistrate has taken into
consideration the evidence place on record by PWs.1 and 2 and
also long cross-examination of prosecution witnesses namely
PWs.3 and 4 in Paragraph Nos.16 to 18 of the trial Court
Judgment and therefore, hardly there is any scope for this
Court that too in the revisional jurisdiction to accept the
concurrent findings recorded by the learned trial Judge and the
learned Judge in the First Appellate Court and sought for
dismissal of the revision petition.
17. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
bestowed its best attention to the material on record.
18. The revision petition is filed in the year 2021, is yet
to be admitted.
19. On such perusal of the trial Court records, it is
crystal clear that PWs.1 and 2 are the persons who are the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18734
complainant and eye-witness to the incident. They were near
by the spot of the accident and on hearing the hue and cry,
they rushed to the spot. It is they who have shifted the injured
to the Hospital at Srirangapatna at the first instance and later
on for higher medical care, the injured was shifted to
K.R.Hospital, Mysuru. However, due to impact of the accidental
injuries, the injured did not survive and therefore, the police
registered a case for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC
as well. The detail cross-examination of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 has
been specifically dealt by the learned trial Magistrate in
Paragraph Nos.15 to 18 of its judgment.
20. Admittedly, accused is a stranger so far as the
prosecution witnesses are concerned. In the absence of any
previous enmity or animosity, why would the prosecution
witnesses falsely implicate the accused in the incident is a
question, that remains answered.
21. The material evidence placed on record and the
detailed cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses did not
yield any positive circumstances so as to disbelieve the case of
the prosecution, which has been rightly appreciated by the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18734
learned trial Magistrate and the learned Judge in the First
Appellate Court.
22. Under the circumstances, recording of a finding by
the learned trial Judge that the accused is guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC read with
Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is just and proper.
23. Moreover, there is no contra evidence placed on
record or version of the accused with regard to the incident
either in the form of the accused statement recorded under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C., or by examining the accused himself.
24. Under such circumstances, following the dictum of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur vs. State of
Rajasthan reported in (2012) 9 SCC 284, the contentions
urged on behalf of the revision petitioner cannot be
countenanced in law.
25. This would take us to the question of whether the
sentence of one year passed by the learned trial Judge,
confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court is
on the higher side.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18734
26. Taking note of the fact that the accused did not
chose to have his say in the matter. In the absence of any
break marks in the spot sketch or in the photograph that has
been produced before the trial Court, what are the efforts made
by the accused to avoid the accident is not forthcoming on
record.
27. Accused has gone to extent of denying the very
accident in Accused Statement. No mitigating circumstances
are placed on record by Accused. Under such circumstances, in
the absence of any mitigating circumstances pleaded on behalf
of the accused, only on the ground that the accused has got a
family to maintain would not be sufficient enough to alter the
sentence as well following the dictum of State of Punjab vs.
Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182.
28. Accordingly, there is no substance in any one of the
grounds urged on behalf of the revision petitioner so as to
admit the matter and consider the request of the revision
petitioner further.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18734
29. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Revision petition is meritless and accordingly
admission declined and revision petition is
rejected.
(ii) Accused shall surrender before trial Magistrate
on or before 30.06.2024 to serve the sentence.
(iii) Office is directed to return trial Court records
with copy of this order forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMJ
