Karnataka High Court

Naveen Kumar vs State By on 27 June, 2024

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                      -1-
                                                  NC: 2024:KHC:24105
                                              CRL.RP No. 104 of 2024




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

                                   BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 104 OF 2024
            BETWEEN:

            NAVEEN KUMAR,
            S/O CHIKKA MUNISWAMACHARI,
            AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
            R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
            BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
                                                         ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI. UMASHANKAR M N., ADVOCATE)

            AND:

            STATE BY TOWN POLICE STATION,
            CHINTAMANI, KOLARA DISTRICT,
            REPTD BY
Digitally   STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
signed by R
MANJUNATHA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Location:   HIGH COURT BUILDING,
HIGH COURT  BENGALURU - 560 001.
OF
KARNATAKA                                             ...RESPONDENT
            (BY SRI.CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

                 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
            ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE
            COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT OF
            CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 13.10.2023 IN
            CRL.A.NO.19/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL
            DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA SITTING
            AT CHINTAMANI CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
            AND    ORDER   OF   SENTENCE    DATED   13.01.2022   IN
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:24105
                                    CRL.RP No. 104 of 2024




C.C.NO.632/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC CHINTAMANI AND ALLOW THE ABOVE
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE
CONVICTION PASSED BY THE COURT BELOW.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                          ORDER

Heard Sri.Umashankar M. N., learned counsel for the

revision petitioner and Sri.Channappa Erappa, learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

2. The present revision petition is filed by the

revision petitioner challenging the order of conviction and

sentence passed in C.C. No.632/2017 dated 13.01.2022

which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.19/2022 dated

13.10.2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 279,

337 and 427 of IPC.

3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost

necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as

under:

3.1. On 01.04.2017 at about 12.10 p.m. within the

limits of Chintamani Town Police Station, on the road

NC: 2024:KHC:24105

leading to Shalini Military hotel, the accused being the

driver of K.S.R.T.C., bus bearing registration No.K.A.40-F-

1080 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed against C.Ws.1 and 2 who were the drivers of the

Honda Activa bearing registration No.K.A.50-U6071. As a

result, C.W.1 and 2 sustained grievous injuries and two

wheeler vehicle was damaged and sum of Rs.20,000/- was

born by C.W.1. Accused after dashing against the vehicle

wherein, C.W.1 was travelling, drove the bus into Banana

shop of C.W.2. Therefore, charge sheet was filed.

4. The learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of

the offence and secured the presence of the accused,

charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty.

Therefore, the trial was held.

5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, in

all nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution and

relied on twelve documentary evidence on record.

NC: 2024:KHC:24105

6. As against the evidence placed on record by the

prosecution, there was no oral or documentary evidence

placed on record on behalf of the accused.

7. The learned Trial Magistrate recorded the

accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313

of Cr.P.C. wherein, accused has denied all the

incriminatory materials.

8. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate after

hearing the parties, learned Trial Judge found that the

prosecution case is acceptable and there is no explanation

offered by the accused to the incriminatory materials

found against him in the case of prosecution and convicted

the accused for the offence punishable under Sections

279, 337 and 427 of IPC and sentenced as referred to

supra.

9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial

Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the First

Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.19/2022.

NC: 2024:KHC:24105

10. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court

after securing the records and hearing the arguments, vide

judgment dated 13.10.2023, dismissed the appeal and

confirmed the order of conviction and sentence.

11. Being further aggrieved by the same, the

accused is before this Court.

12. Reiterating the grounds urged in the revision

petition, Sri.Umashankar M. N., learned counsel for the

revision petitioner vehemently contended that in the case

on hand, materials are available on record that the

accident has occurred and revision petitioner being the

driver of the K.S.R.T.C. is not disputed.

13. However, he contended that accident was

beyond human control and learned Trial Magistrate and

learned Judge in the First Appellate Court ought not to

have convicted the accused for the offence punishable

under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of IPC.

NC: 2024:KHC:24105

14. He further contended that in the event, this

Court is up holding the order of conviction, Court may

consider setting aside the simple imprisonment for a

period of three months ordered by learned Trial magistrate

which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the

offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC and sought

for allowing the revision petition.

15. Per Contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader supports the impugned judgments and contended

that as a consequence of the accident, a pety Banana shop

has been damaged to a great accident and therefore,

awarding sentence of imprisonment for a period of three

months for the offence punishable under Section 427 of

IPC is justified and thus, sought for dismissal of the

revision petition.

16. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court

perused the material on record meticulously.

NC: 2024:KHC:24105

17. On such perusal of the material on record, as is

fairly submitted by learned counsel for the revision

petitioner, accident is not in dispute.

18. However, the driver did not offer any

explanation while recording the accused statement under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and did not place on record his

version insofar as the accident is concerned. Therefore,

guilt of the accused recorded by learned Trial Magistrate in

convicting the accused for the aforesaid offenses is just

and proper following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of Ravi Kapur V/s State of Rajasthan

reported in 2012 (9) SC 284.

19. Having said thus, learned Judge in the First

Appellate Court while reappreciating the material on

record also concurred with the order of conviction but

failed to notice that as a consequence of the accident, the

damage to Banana shop has occurred and it was not

intentional.

NC: 2024:KHC:24105

20. Therefore, the intention to cause the mischief

could not have been attributed to the driver.

21. Consequence of a road traffic accident is

disastrous in some cases. Here only few persons are

injured and there is a damage to the property. When

there is no intentional damage caused to the property,

ordering imprisonment for a period of three months for the

offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC cannot be

countenanced in law.

22. Therefore, to that extent, the submissions

made on behalf of the revision petitioner needs to be

judiciously considered.

23. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

i. Revision petition is allowed in part.

ii. While maintaining the conviction of the

accused for the offence punishable under

NC: 2024:KHC:24105

Sections 279, 337 and 427 of IPC, the

sentence of imprisonment ordered by learned

Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First

Appellate Court for a period of three months

for the offence punishable under Section 427

of IPC is hereby set aside.

iii. Instead the fine amount awarded by the

learned Trial Magistrate in a sum of

Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under

Section 427 of IPC is enhanced to Rs.10,000/.



iv.    Of the fine amount recovered, the owner of

       the     Banana     Shop    is    entitled     for    the

compensation in a sum of Rs.5,000/-.

v. Balance amount is to be appropriated towards

the defraying expenses of the State.

vi. Rest of the sentence stands unaltered.

vii. Time is granted for the revision petitioner to

pay the balance fine amount till 31.07.2024,