Karnataka High Court
Chandrappa vs State By on 28 June, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24223
CRL.RP No. 485 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 485 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
CHANDRAPPA
S/O HORAKERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O MALLAPANAHATTI VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY S.H.O
RURAL POLICE STATION
CHITRADURGA, RPTD. BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by NANDINI (BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)
MS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.02.2024 PASSED
BY THE HONBLE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHITRADURGA IN CRL.A.NO.113/2019 AND ALSO JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 30.11.2019 PASSED
BY THE I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C CHITRADURGA IN
C.C.NO.1496/2014 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U*/S 279 AND 304-A OF
IPC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24223
CRL.RP No. 485 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Vinay, learned HCGP for respondent - State.
2. The accused who suffered an order of conviction for
the offence punishable under Sections 279 & 304A of IPC
confirming in Crl.A.No.113/2019 has preferred this revision
petition.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the revision petition are as under:
A complaint came to be lodged by Sri. M Gurumurthy S/o
Masiyappa with Chitradurga Rural Police Station, Chitradurga
on 01.09.2014 which was registered in Crime No.339/2014 for
the offence punishable under Sections 279 & 304 of IPC.
4. Gist of the complaint averments reveal that on
01.09.2014 at about 8.30 a.m, when complainant had been to
Singapura Kavaluhatti in an autorikshaw, he was accompanied
by his grandson and near the garden house, grandson got
down from autorikshaw and after visiting the persons, he was
NC: 2024:KHC:24223
to return to autorikshaw. While so returning to autorikshaw
after waiving hands and bidding goodbye to the persons at
garden house, a car bearing registration No.KA-16-M-4458
came from Chitradurga side in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against the grandson. Because of the accident, a
boy was thrown out and he fell near the bushes. Thereafter,
driver of the car and others shifted the injured to
Basaveshwara hospital in the very same car and admitted him
to hospital. The complaint averments further reveal that the
doctor who examined the boy declared that he was brought
dead. After registering the case as aforesaid, investigating
agency conducted detailed investigation and filed charge sheet
against the revision petitioner for the aforesaid offences.
5. Presence of the accused was secured before the
jurisdictional magistrate and charges were framed. Accused
pleaded not guilty and therefore, the trial was held.
6. The complainant was examined as PW1. So also
PWs.2 to 4 who is the eye witnesses to the incident and they
were also inmates of the autorikshaw, wherein the complainant
NC: 2024:KHC:24223
and his grandson had also travelled. All those witnesses have
categorically supported the case of the prosecution in toto.
7. In the cross-examination of PW1, it is suggested by
the counsel for defence that he was sitting in the back seat of
the autorikshaw and he has seen the incident at about 10 feet
from the place of incident. It was also elicited in the cross-
examination that road repair work was going on near the place
of incident. It is also admitted by PW1 that the garden house
was situated near Kavaluhatti bus stand. He has also given the
registration number of the Car in the cross-examination. He
denied the suggestion that the accused was not the driver of
the Car as on the date of accident. He further denied the
suggestion in order to claiming compensation from the owner of
the Car a false complaint has been registered.
8. In cross-examination of PW2, again it is elicited that
on either side of the road, repair was going on. This witness
has stated that he has seen the incident about 10 feet away
from the place of incident. In the cross-examination to a
specific suggestion that accident has not occurred on account of
rash and negligent driving of the Car, witness has reiterated
NC: 2024:KHC:24223
that it is because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the Car, accident has occurred.
9. In the cross-examination of PW3, it has been
elicited that in all, five persons were inmates of autorikshaw
and he was sitting on the right hand corner of the autorikshaw.
Again in his cross-examination, suggestion is made that the
accident has not occurred on account of the negligence of the
driver denied by him.
10. In the cross-examination of PW4, similar
suggestions were made. This witness has stated about repair
work being carried out on the road, but the suggestion that the
accident has not occurred on account of the negligence of the
driver of the Car but on account of negligence of deceased is
denied by the witness.
11. PW.5 is the Investigation Officer. In his cross-
examination, the contradictions elicited in the cross-
examination with regard to the statements given by the
witnesses before the Investigation Agency and the cross-
examination and chief-examination of the witnesses is put to
him which has been admitted by the Investigation Officer. The
NC: 2024:KHC:24223
other witnesses are formal witnesses who are panch witnesses,
inquest panchanama and spot panchanama.
12. Based on the aforesaid evidence, the accused
statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, was
recorded by the learned trial Magistrate. It is pertinent to note
that accused has denied all the incriminating circumstances
including the accident. He does not even speak about the
efforts made by him to shift the injured in his car which is a
fact that has been consistently spoken by all the prosecuting
witnesses.
13. Thereafter, learned trial Judge heard the parties in
detail and on considering the oral and documentary evidence
and facts on record convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 279 of IPC with six months simple imprisonment and
fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall
further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The
accused also convicted for the offences punishable under
Section 304-A of IPC with one year simple imprisonment and
fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default to payment of fine, he shall
further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
NC: 2024:KHC:24223
14. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an
appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.113/2019. Learned
judge in the First Appellate Court secure the records and heard
the parties in detail in the light of the grounds urged in the
appeal memorandum and dismissed the appeal and confirmed
the order of conviction and sentence.
15. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused has
preferred the present revision petition.
16. Sri Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel representing
the revision petitioner contended that the place of incident is a
national highway and therefore, considerable speed was
allowed on such a road. He further contended that the
deceased being a young boy did not have the road sense and
suddenly entered the road from the garden house whereby
accused could not avoid the accident. As such, the accident has
occurred on account of the negligence of the deceased and not
by the driver of the Car.
17. He also pointed out that the prosecution witnesses
have consistently stated that the accused thereafter, stopped
the car and shifted the injured in his car itself to Basaveshwara
NC: 2024:KHC:24223
Hospital, Chitradruga, but doctor declared him as brought dead.
This conduct of the accused would go to show that he is never
intended to drive the Car in a rash and negligent manner so as
to endanger a human life which is a sine qua non factor to
attract the offences punishable under Section 279 & 304A of
IPC and sought for allowing the petition.
18. Alternatively, Sri Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel
contended that since there is no minimum sentence prescribed
for the offence under Section 304A of IPC, this Court may take
lenient view and pass appropriate order with regard to
sentence.
19. Per contra, Sri Vinay learned High Court
Government Pleader supported the impugned judgment. He
further pointed out that the witnesses who have supported the
case of the prosecution except the complainant are not the
relatives of the deceased who did not nurture any enmity or
animosity as against the accused to falsely implicate the
accused. Therefore, their evidence has been properly
appreciated by the learned trial Magistrate and learned Judge
of the First Appellate Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:24223
20. He also pointed out that since the life of an young
boy was lost in the incident, the sentence ordered by the trial
Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court is just and
proper and sought for dismissal of the petition.
21. Having heard the parties this Court perused the
material meticulously. On perusal of material on record, in the
case on hand, the accident involving the Car bearing
registration No.KA-16-M-4458 and death of the grandson of the
complainant is not in dispute.
22. Though in the cross-examination of complainant
and other witnesses, suggestions have been made by the
learned counsel for the accused that it is not the accused who
was the driver of the Car, the fact remains that as on the date
of accident, it is the revision petitioner who was the driver of
the Car. It is also consistent say of the prosecution witnesses
that the boy was shifted from the place of accident to
Basaveshwara Hospital in the Car of the accused itself.
23. Since the suggestions that the accused was not the
driver denied by the prosecution evidence and material on
record would go to show that it was the accused who was the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24223
driver of the Car in question as on the date of accident, there
should not be any difficulty in holding that it is the accused -
revision petitioner who was the driver of the Car.
24. Further, as it is contended by the learned counsel
for the revision petitioner, the Court has to find out whether the
negligence on part of the revision petitioner was the cause for
the accident. PW.1 and other three supporting witnesses have
specifically stated that auto was parked near the garden house
of belonging to the complainant and the boy has visited the
garden house and while returning to the autorikshaw, the Car
came in a rash and negligent manner resulting in a accident
and the boy was thrown about 20 feet away from the place
where the Car dashed the boy.
25. The complaint averments, sketch and the spot
mahazar would go to show that the Car came in wrong side and
dashed against the boy. Therefore, material on record would go
to show that due to rash and negligent driving of the revision
petitioner accident has occurred.
26. Spot sketch and spot mahazar would acknowledge
the same. No doubt, that the road where the accident has
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24223
taken place is a busy road as is admitted by the witnesses and
number of vehicles would be moving in the said road. Since it is
a highway road, the drivers are expected to drive the vehicle
with a reasonable amount of speed. It is also elicited that near
the place of accident, bus stand of Kavaluhatti is situated and
place of accident was a junction. In such circumstances, the
driver of the motor vehicle is expected to drive the same
expecting an unexpected of movement of pedestrians.
27. In the case on hand, what actually happened on the
place of accident is spoken by PWs-1 to 4 consistently. No
contra version is forthcoming on record either in the form of
answering by putting incriminating circumstances in the
accused statement or by filing written statement as is
contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C, or by examining
the accused by himself.
28. Under such circumstance, the principles of law
enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAVI
KAPUR V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - (2012) 9 SCC 284 in
paragraph No.39 would come into play.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24223
29. For ready reference, paragraph No.39 of RAVI
KAPUR (supra) extracted hereunder:
"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 prove an
opportunity to the accused to explain his conduct or
his version of the case. To provide this opportunity to
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".
30. As could be seen from the material on record,
learned trial Judge while recording the accused statement, has
put across the specific incriminating material to the accused in
the language known to the accused. Accused without even
offering any explanation has gone to the extent of denying the
very accident. Therefore, the consequence in law has been
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24223
followed by the trial Magistrate in convicting the accused for
the offences punishable under Section 279 & 304A of IPC.
31. Learned trial Judge in the first appellate court, not
only discussed in detail the evidentiary value of each of the
witnesses in its judgment but also supplemented the additional
reasons for believing the testimony of the eye witnesses and
also placed on record and also followed the principles of law
enunciated in the decisions relied on by the parties in the
impugned judgment.
32. The First Appellate Court took into consideration all
relevant aspects of the matter and did not find any ground
whatsoever to reject the finding of the trial Court and rightly
dismissed the appeal.
33. This Court that too in the revisional jurisdiction,
cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter in upsetting
the finding recorded by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the
First Appellate Court in convicting the accused for the offences
punishable under Section 279 & 304A of IPC.
34. Having said thus, the alternative submission of
counsel for the revision petitioner need to be considered by this
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24223
Court. Sri Rajendra Reddy contended that even though counsel
for accused has suggested to the PWs.1 to 4 that it was not the
accused who was driving the Car, much of significance should
be attached to such suggestion as the suggestion has been
denied by the witnesses. But witnesses themselves have sated
that it is the accused who shifted the injured from the place of
accident to Basaveshwara Hospital, Chitradurga which
establishes the conduct of accused in not running away from
the scene of the incident.
35. As could be seen from the consistent statements
made by the prosecution witnesses, injured were shifted to the
Car of the accused to the Basaveshwara Hospital. Therefore,
some amount of leniency is to be shown taking note of the
conduct of the accused in a matter of this nature. However,
since a life of a young boy has been lost on account of rash and
negligent driving of accused, following the dictum of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB V. SAURABH
BAKSHI - (2015) 5 SCC 182 this Court is of the considered
opinion that reducing the sentence from one year to six months
for the offence punishable under Section 304A of ICP would
meet the ends of justice.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24223
36. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. Revision petition is allowed in part.
ii. While maintaining the conviction of the
accused for the offence punishable under
Section 279 & 304A of ICP, sentence of
imprisonment of one year ordered by the
trial Magistrate confirmed by the First
Appellate Court for the offence punishable
under Section 304A of ICP is hereby
reduced to six months simple
imprisonments
iii. Rest of the sentence stands unaltered.
iv. Accused is granted time till 20.07.2024 to
surrender before the trial Court to serve the
sentence.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NMS
