Karnataka High Court
Gangadhar Poojary vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19882
CRL.RP No. 468 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 468 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
GANGADHAR POOJARY,
AGED 41 YEARS,
SON OF KUMARA,
RESIDENT OF KAKKUNJE,
SANTHEKATTE POST,
UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-576 103.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
KAUP POLICE STATION,
UDUPI TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 103
REPRESENTED BY
Digitally signed SPP HIGH COURT
by D HEMA BANGALORE.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.02.2013 PASSED BY THE II
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT UDUPI IN C.C.NO.3731/2008
AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY
THE PRL. S.J., UDUPI, IN CRL.A.NO.21/2013 DATED
16.02.2016.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19882
CRL.RP No. 468 of 2016
ORDER
1. This revision petition is filed by the accused in
C.C.No.3731/2008 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC, Udupi challenging the judgment passed in Crl.A
No.21/2013 by the Principal District Sessions Judge, Udupi
District at Udupi, dated 16.02.2016 upholding conviction of
the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 279,
337, 338 and 304A of IPC and sentencing him by the trial
court.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the accused
was the driver of the lorry bearing KA-20B-658. On
28.06.2008, the accused drove the lorry from Udupi
towards Mangaluru on National Highway in rash and
negligent manner and at Mulor village of Udupi District, he
went to wrong side of the road and dashed against the
Maruthi car bearing No.KA-11M-1057 as a result of which
one Smt. Manjula traveling in the car sustained fatal injury
and succumbed to the injuries and other inmates CWs.1
NC: 2024:KHC:19882
and 2 had sustained serious injuries and CW.3 sustained
simple injuries.
3. The complainant had given complaint against
the accused at Kaup police station, Udupi District. On that
basis, registered a case in Cr.No.120/2008 was registered
for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338
and 304A of IPC. After investigation, CPI of Kaup, Udupi
District charge sheeted the accused, for the said offences
and charge sheet was filed before JMFC Court, Udupi
which was registered as C.C.No.3731/2008.
4. The revision petitioner - accused pleaded not
guilty before the trial Court. His plea was recorded. The
prosecution in support of its case examined 9 witnesses as
PW.1 to PW.9 and got marked 14 documents as Exs.P1 to
P14. Thereafter, the Court examined the accused under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C and his answers were recorded.
5. Learned trial judge after hearing both the
parties as well as appreciating the evidence available on
NC: 2024:KHC:19882
record vide judgment dated 04.02.2013 convicted the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 279,
337, 338, 304A of IPC and sentenced him to pay fine as
well as to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three months.
6. The revision petitioner - accused challenged the
same before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.21/2013.
The first appellate Court after hearing both the sides and
re-appreciating the evidence on record, vide judgment
dated 16.02.2016 dismissed the appeal and upheld the
conviction and sentence.
7. The said concurrent findings of the Courts
below has been challenged in the present revision petition
on the grounds mentioned in the revision petition.
8. None appears for the revision petitioner.
9. Heard learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent - State.
NC: 2024:KHC:19882
10. The matter is admitted for disposal.
11. The main ground stated in the revision petition
is that the accused was not given opportunity to cross
examine PWs.1 to 3 and the trial Court hurriedly disposed
off the matter without providing opportunity to cross-
examine PWs.1 to 3 . The said ground is not tenable. It is
pertinent to note that PW1 to 3 were examined on
09.04.2009. The judgment was pronounced by the trial
Court on 04.02.2013. The matter was pending before the
very same Court for about four years for evidence of PWs.
1 to 3. It appears that no attempts were made by the
revision petitioner either to recall the said witness for
cross-examination or to take proper action for availing the
benefit of cross-examination. Therefore, at this juncture,
the said contention cannot be acceptable.
12. Both the Courts below appreciating and re-
appreciating the oral evidence and considering the
materials available on record, rightly came to the
NC: 2024:KHC:19882
conclusion and convicted the revision petitioner it does not
call for any interference by this Court.
13. Under Section 397 of IPC, scope of this revision
is very limited. If there is any illegality or arbitrariness or
perversity in the impugned judgment then only this Court
can consider said facts and decide the matter. However,
considering the judgment passed by the Courts below,
especially First Appellate Court all the procedures were
strictly followed and judgment was pronounced.
Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the
said findings. The revision petition is devoid of merits. The
victims PWs.1 to 3 have unequivocally supported the case
of the prosecution. The said evidence is unchallenged.
14. PW1 to 3 have narrated the fact of the accident
and also stated about the negligence on the part of the
driver of the lorry. PWs.4 and 5 are witness to the spot
mahazar. They did not support the case of the
prosecution. However, investigating officer in his evidence
has stated about the drawing of the mahazar at the spot.
NC: 2024:KHC:19882
Ex.P14 clearly shows that after the accident, lorry dashed
against the electric poll and damaged the same and spot
of the accident is towards western side, which is on wrong
side to the lorry. It clearly reveals that lorry went to
wrong side of the road and caused the accident. The same
is appreciated and re-appreciated by the Courts below. In
view of the said reasons, no grounds to interfere with the
findings of both the Courts. Accordingly, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The criminal revision petition is
dismissed.
ii. The impugned order dated
16.02.2016 passed by the Principal
Sessions Judge, Udupi District at Udupi in
Crl.A.No.21/2013 is confirmed.
iii. The bail bond executed by the
revision petitioner and the surety stands
cancelled.
NC: 2024:KHC:19882
iv. The accused shall surrender before
the trial Court within a period of 45 days
from the date of this order to undergo
sentence.
v. Registry is directed to send back the
trial Court records along with copy of the
judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AG
