Karnataka High Court

Sri Sriram vs The State By on 26 June, 2024

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                     -1-
                                                  NC: 2024:KHC:24255
                                              CRL.RP No. 315 of 2020




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

                                   BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.315 OF 2020
            BETWEEN:

            SRI SRIRAM
            S/O GOVINDA SWAMY
            AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
            R/AT NO.1199, VIDYASAGARA CROSS
            VEERANNA PALYA, KHB MAIN ROAD,
            A C POST, BENGALURU-560 045
                                                       ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI BALAKRISHNA M R, ADVOCATE)
            AND:

            THE STATE BY SADASHIVANAGARA
            TRAFFIC POLICE STATION
            BENGALURU
            REPRESENTED BY ITS
            STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
            HIGH COURT BUILDING
Digitally   BENGALURU-560 001
signed by
MALATESH                                              ...RESPONDENT
KC          (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
Location:         THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
HIGH
COURT OF    CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
KARNATAKA   DATED 10.02.2020 PASSED BY THE LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY
            CIVIL    AND    SESSIONS     JUDGE,   BENGALURU    IN
            CRL.A.NO.1931/2018 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
            ORDER DATED 27.08.2018 PASSED BY THE M.M.T.C.-V,
            BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.888/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
            279, 338 AND 304(A) OF IPC AND SECTION 134(a) AND (b)
            R/W 187 OF M.V. ACT AND ACQUIT HIM.
                                -2-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:24255
                                        CRL.RP No. 315 of 2020




     THIS CRL.RP, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                            ORDER

Heard Sri M.R.Balakrishna, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court

Government Pleader.

2. Revision Petitioner is the accused who suffered an order

of conviction in C.C No.888/2017 dated 27.08.2018 on the file

of the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-V, Bengaluru,

confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.1931/2018 dated 10.02.2020

on the file of the LI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-

52) and c/c of LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-

59), Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under sections

279, 338, 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for

disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

A complaint came to be lodged with Sadashivanagara

police station by one Suryanarayana on 19th January 2016

alleging that on the said day, at about 11:00 AM on C.V.Raman

Road, accused being the driver of the Tata Mini lorry bearing

registration number KA-03/D-3943, drew the same in a rash

NC: 2024:KHC:24255

and negligent manner and dashed against the rider of TVS

Scooty PEP bearing registration No.KA-03/HA-7969, and

because of the accident, rider and pillion rider fell down and

rider of the vehicle/complainant by name Suryanarayana

sustained grievous injuries and pillion rider by name Master

Mohit lost his life.

4. Injured was shifted to hospital and treated. Based on the

said complaint, Sadashivanagara police registered a case and

conducted detailed investigation and filed charge sheet.

5. Presence of the accused was secured and charge framed.

Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore trial was held.

6. In order to the prove the case of prosecution,

complainant who is also injured in the incident is examined as

PW-1 and five more witnesses were examined as PWs 2 to 6

and placed on record twelve documentary evidence exhibited

and marked as Exhibits P1 to P 12 comprising of complaint,

spot mahazar, inquest, seizure mahajar, wound certificate,

postmortem report, death intimation, IMV report, FIR and the

sketch. Cross examination of these witnesses did not yield any

NC: 2024:KHC:24255

positive material to dislodge the oral testimony of prosecution

witnesses.

7. As against the evidence placed on record by the

prosecution, no contra evidence is placed by the accused nor

any plausible explanation is offered in the statement recorded

under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure except

denial of all incriminating material including accident.

8. The learned trial Magistrate thereafter heard the parties

and convicted the accused and passed the sentence as under:

"Acting powers u/Sec.255(2) of the Cr.P.C., accused is hereby convicted for the offences punishable u/Ss.279, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC and u/Ss.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of MV Act.

Accused shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand) for the offence punishable u/Ss.279 of IPC in default of payment of fine accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

Accused shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand) for the offence punishable u/Ss.338 of IPC in default of payment of fine accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

NC: 2024:KHC:24255

Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) for the offence punishable u/Ss.304(A) of IPC in default of payment of fine accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

Accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand) for the offence punishable u/Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act. I/D S.I. for the period of 30 days.

Accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.8,000/- (Eight Thousand).

The above sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.

Supply free copy of this judgment as per law to the accused."

9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an

appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.1931/

2018.

10. The learned Judge in the first Appellate Court, after

hearing the parties and after securing the records, dismissed

the appeal confirming the sentence passed by the learned trial

Magistrate.

NC: 2024:KHC:24255

11. Thereafter, accused is before this Court in this revision

petition.

12. Sri Balakrishna, learned counsel for the revision petitioner

reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that

because of the negligence of the P.W.1 accident has occurred

and same has not been appreciated by both the Courts and

sought for allowing the revision petition.

13. Alternatively, he also contended that in the event of this

Court confirming the conviction, taking note of the fact that

accused has 3 daughters and 3 sons and among them, one of

the son has recently died which is a mitigating factor and

therefore sentence be reduced to three months.

14. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

opposes the revision grounds as well as alternative submission

and submits that revision petition be dismissed in toto.

15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this

court perused the material on record meticulously.

NC: 2024:KHC:24255

16. In the case on hand, rider of the TVS Scooty Pep viz.,

Suryanarayana is the complainant who is also the injured in the

very same accident and wound certificate shows there is

fracture of thigh in one leg and another leg is also grievously

injured. Pillion rider was the son of the complainant who lost

his life in the accident.

17. Admittedly accused was the driver of the Mini Lorry and

he did not take any steps to shift the injured to the hospital,

but ran away.

18. The fact remains that police have filed charge sheet

against accused and there is no explanation offered by the

accused and to place his version about the accident as is held

in the case of Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan reported in

(2012)9 SCC 284, wherein at paragraph 39, it is held us

under.

"39. It is true that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but the provisions of Section 313 CrPC are not a mere formality or purposeless. They have a dual purpose to discharge, firstly, that the entire material parts of the incriminating evidence should be put to the accused in accordance with law and, secondly, to provide an opportunity to the

NC: 2024:KHC:24255

accused to explain his conduct or his version of the case. To provide this opportunity to the accused is the mandatory duty of the court. If the accused deliberately fails to avail this opportunity, then the consequences in law have to follow, particularly when it would be expected of the accused in the normal course of conduct to disclose certain facts which may be within his personal knowledge and have a bearing on the case."

19. Therefore, the order of conviction passed by the learned

Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the first

Appellate Court needs no interference by this Court, that too, in

the revisional jurisdiction.

20. Now, coming to the question of sentence, what is the

mitigating circumstance placed on record by the revision

petitioner is that accused has six children, among them one son

died recently. Therefore, revision Petitioner wants reduction of

sentence to three months.

21. Taking note of the fact that complainant got severely

injured and his son died in the accident and also taking note of

the fact that there is death in the family of the accused

recently, if sentence is reduced from one year to six months

NC: 2024:KHC:24255

ends of justice would be met by enhancing the fine to another

sum of ₹25,000/-.

22. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

(i) Revision petition is allowed in part.

(ii) While maintaining the conviction for the

offence punishable under Sections 279, 338,

304A of IPC, sentence ordered by the learned

Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned

Judge in the first appellate Court is reduced

from one year to six months for the offence

under Section 304A of the IPC, and ordered to

pay enhanced fine amount of ₹25,000 payable

as compensation to the complainant.

(iii) Accused is granted time till 25th July 2024 to

appear before the learned Trial Magistrate for

serving sentence and pay the enhanced

compensation. Failure to pay enhanced