Karnataka High Court
Pradeep vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19858
CRL.RP No. 347 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 347 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. PRADEEP
S/O MAHADEV
NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.295
EWS LAKSHMIKANTHANAGARA
HEBBAL
MYSURU CITY -570026
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THe POLICE OF
V V PURAM TRAFFIC
Digitally POLICE STATION
signed by MYSURU CITY-570002
LAKSHMI T REPRESENTED BY
Location: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
High Court HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
of BENGALURU-560001
Karnataka ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DATED 21.11.2019 IN C.C.NO.178/2015 PASSED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU AND
CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.392/2019 DATED 02.02.2021
FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 279, 304A OF IPC AND
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19858
CRL.RP No. 347 of 2021
SEC.134(A)(B) R/W 187 AND 3(1) R/W 181 OF IMV ACT AND
TO ACQUIT HIM FOR THE AFORESAID OFFENCES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard.
2. Revision petition is by the accused challenging
the order of conviction in C.C.No.178/2015 confirmed in
Crl.A No.292/2019 for the offences punishable under
Section 279 and 304(A) IPC and Section 134 (A)(B) r/w
Section 187 and Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act
and sentenced as under:
"Acting under power conferred under Section
255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 is hereby
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections
279, 304(A) of IPC and Sec.134(A)(B) R/w Sec.187
and Sec.3(1) r/w Sec.181 of IMV Act.
Further Acting under power conferred under
Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.2 is
hereby convicted for the offences punishable under
Section 14 r/w Sec.106, Section 56 r/w Sec.192,
Section 146 r/w Sec.196, 5(1) r/w Sec.180 of IMV
Act.
NC: 2024:KHC:19858
The accused No.1 shall pay fine of Rs.1000/-
for the offence punishable under Sec.279 of IPC.
Further the accused No.1 shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 6 months and pay a
fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 304(A) of IPC.
Further the accused No.1 shall pay fine of
Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Section
134(A)(B) r/w Sec.187 of IMV Act.
Further the accused No.1 shall pay fine of
Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Sec.3(1)
r/w Sec.181 of IMV Act.
If the accused No.1 failed to pay the fine
amount, he shall further undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
Further the accused No.2 shall pay fine of
Rs.3000/- for the offence punishable under Section
14 r/w Sec.106 and Section 56 r/w Sec.192.
Further the accused No.2 shall pay fine of
Rs.2000/- for the offence punishable under Section
146 r/w Sec.196 and 5(1) r/w Sec.180 of IMV Act.
If the accused No.2 failed to pay the fine
amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 3 months.
NC: 2024:KHC:19858
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
the disposal of the revision petition are as under:
A complaint came to be filed on 31.05.2015 alleging
that on 29.05.2015 at about 8.30 p.m., Ramaswamy
Gowda along with three more persons took shelter near
Venkataramana Temple in Vontikoppal, KRS road, Mysuru
on account of heavy rain fall.
4. After the rain stopped, they wanted to move to
the other side of the road to reach their place. After they
crossed one side of the road, and median thereof, when
they entered other side of the road, an auto rickshaw
came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
them. Whereby, Ramaswamy Gowda suffered head injury.
Auto rickshaw got toppled and driver of the auto rickshaw
also got injured. With the help of the general public,
injured persons were shifted to hospital. But Ramaswamy
Gowda lost his life on account of the accidental injuries
sustained by him.
NC: 2024:KHC:19858
5. His son Naveen Kumar lodged the complaint
and police investigated the matter thoroughly and filed
charge sheet against the driver of the auto rickshaw.
Charge sheet materials would go to show that the accused
did not possess the driving license to drive the auto
rickshaw and he came in a rash and negligent manner with
a defective headlight on to the auto rickshaw. Presence of
the accused was secured before the trial Magistrate after
taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences and charge
was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore,
trial was held.
6. Complainant being the son of the deceased who
was examined as PW.1 and three more eye witnesses
were also examined. All of them supported the case of
prosecution. In their cross-examination no material is
elicited so as to disbelieve their testimony.
7. Post Mortem report marked at Ex.P10 discloses
the injuries sustained by Ramaswamy Gowda and doctor
who issued the Post Mortem report has clearly opined that
NC: 2024:KHC:19858
death is due to coma as a result of head injury sustained
by Ramaswamy Gowda. Author of Ex.P10 is also examined
before the Court. IMA report shows that there is no
mechanical defect in the auto rickshaw.
8. On perusing all these incriminatory evidence, it
is evident that accused did not possess the driving licence
and in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances
including the accident.
9. It is also pertinent to note that in the very same
incident, accused also got injured and while taking
treatment, he has mentioned that he sustained injuries in
road traffic accident on the same day.
10. Accused did not choose to lead any evidence on
record nor filed any written statement as is contemplated
under Section 313(4) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, learned trial
Judge heard the parties and based on the material
evidence on record, convicted the accused for the
aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra.
NC: 2024:KHC:19858
11. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by the learned trial
Magistrate, accused preferred an appeal before the District
Court Mysuru in Criminal Appeal No.392/2019.
12. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court after
securing the records, heard the parties in detail and by
judgment dated 02.02.2021 dismissed the appeal of the
accused and confirmed the order of conviction and
sentence passed by the learned trial Judge.
13. Being further aggrieved by the orders passed
by the learned trial Magistrate and the learned judge in
the first appellate Court, present revision petition is filed
by the accused.
14. Sri.K.A.Chandrashekara, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the
revision petition vehemently contended that both the
Courts have failed to appreciate that the accident has
occurred beyond the human control inasmuch as PW.1
clearly admits in his cross-examination that at the time of
NC: 2024:KHC:19858
the incident, it was still raining and the auto rickshaw got
skid on applying the brake by the driver as suddenly the
deceased and his relatives appeared on the road.
15. He also pointed out that in such circumstances,
despite the best efforts made by the accused to avoid the
accident, accident has occurred and the trial Magistrate
ignored the said piece of evidence and first appellate Court
mechanically dismissed the appeal and sought for allowing
the revision petition.
16. Alternatively, Sri.K.A.Chandrashekara, learned
counsel contended that by enhancing the fine amount, the
sentence of six months imprisonment may be set aside for
the offence under Section 304A IPC and sought for
allowing the revision petition.
17. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader Sri Channappa Errappa supported the impugned
judgments by contending that there are four eye witnesses
to the incident and they have all supported the case of the
prosecution.
NC: 2024:KHC:19858
18. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, he
pointed out that minimum of six months imprisonment has
been granted by the trial Magistrate for the offence under
Section 304A IPC and therefore, in the attending facts and
circumstances of the case, there is no scope for reduction
of sentence and sought for dismissal of the revision
petition.
19. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
20. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that the accused was the driver of the auto
rickshaw in question. It is also pertinent to note that driver
of the auto rickshaw who is none other than the accused
sustained injuries in the very same incident and while
taking treatment, he has narrated that he has sustained
the injuries in a road traffic accident.
21. Ramaswamy Gowda lost his consciousness on
the stop and he was shifted to the hospital. Despite best
treatment, he did not survive. The opinion given by the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19858
Doctor who issued the post mortem certificate viz., Ex.P10
shows that Ramaswamy Gowda died on account of coma
resulting from the head injury sustained by him in the
road traffic accident. All the eye witnesses have supported
the case of the prosecution in toto and despite searching
cross-examination of these witnesses did not yield any
contra materials so as to disbelieve the case of the
prosecution.
22. It is also pertinent to note that none of the
witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the
prosecution did not nurture any previous enmity or
animosity so as to falsely implicate the accused in the
incident.
23. It is found from the records that the accused
did not possess the driving licence to drive the auto
rickshaw. These factors on cumulative consideration has
resulted the trial Magistrate to come to the conclusion that
prosecution has successfully established that because of
the accidental injuries sustained by the Rawaswamy
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19858
Gowda, he lost his life. The trial Magistrate has recorded a
categorical finding that the accident has occurred on
account of rash and negligent driving by accused revision
petitioner. No explanation whatsoever has been furnished
by the accused to the incriminatory circumstances that is
put forth to him in the statement nor any explanation is
offered by him.
24. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of RAVI KAPUR V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
reported in (2012)9 SCC 284 this Court is of the
considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial
Magistrate that accused is guilty of the aforesaid offences
is thus justified.
25. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court after
re-appreciating the material evidence on record in the light
of the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum did not
find any ground in the appeal memorandum that would be
sufficient enough to hold that the judgment of the trial
Magistrate suffers from perversity or legal infirmity.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19858
26. Accordingly, recording of a finding that accused
is guilty of the aforesaid offences by the trial Magistrate
confirmed by the first appellate Court is based on sound
and logical reasons and therefore, does not make out a
case for interference by this Court that too in the
revisional jurisdiction.
27. This would take us to the question whether the
sentence, which has been passed by the trial Magistrate
confirmed by the first appellate Court is appropriate or
not.
28. Admittedly, Ramaswamy Gowda lost his life in
the accident. The impact of the accident resulted in head
injury and Ramaswamy Gowda went into coma and did not
survive. Accused did not possess the driving licence and
he has taken the auto rickshaw on the road without
driving licence. He has been prosecuted for the said
offence as well by the prosecution by invoking the charge
under Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19858
29. Under such circumstances, in the absence of
any mitigating circumstance put forth by the accused,
sentence of six months imprisonment for the offence
under Section 304A IPC is just and proper and therefore,
does not call for any interference by this Court in this
revision. Hence, following:
ORDER
1. Criminal revision petition is meritless and
hereby dismissed.
2. Time is granted for the accused to
surrender before the trial Court for serving
the sentence till 30.06.2024.
SD/-
JUDGE
HB
