Karnataka High Court
Sri M K Narasimhaiah @ Narasimhan vs State By Peenya Traffic Police on 4 March, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9280
CRL.A No. 961 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 961 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M K NARASIMHAIAH @ NARASIMHAN
S/O KUPPUSWAMY @ KUPPUSWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/A NO.9, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT
NEAR MUNESHWARA TEMPLE
LAGGERE, BANGALORE-58.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY PEENYA TRAFFIC POLICE
Digitally
...RESPONDENT
signed by
LAKSHMI T
(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP)
Location:
High Court
of THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
Karnataka SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DT.13/6/2012 PASSED
BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC (SESSIONS) COURT, XVII,
BANGALORE CITY, IN S.C. No.1341/2010 IN CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ ACCUSED-1 FOR OFFENCES P/U/S.279, 337, 338
& 304(A) OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9280
CRL.A No. 961 of 2012
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by accused No.1, feeling
aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 13.06.2012
passed by the Court of Presiding Officer, Fast Track
(Sessions) Court, XVII Bengaluru City in Sessions Case
No.1341/2010.
2. Vide impugned judgment , the learned Sessions
Judge has convicted the appellant/accused No.1 for the
offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and
304(A) of IPC and acquitted accused No.2 of the offence
punishable under Section 304 of IPC.
3. Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned
High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused
the evidence and material on record.
4. It is the case of prosecution that on 12.05.2010
at about 10.30 p.m., appellant/accused No.1 being the
driver of a lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01-A-2169
drove the said lorry loaded with iron plates projecting 5 ft
NC: 2024:KHC:9280
outside its body on both sides, in a rash and negligent
manner and hit against an oncoming Maxi Cab bearing
Registration No.KA-05-A-6396, opposite Sunakthi Solar
Energy System Private Limited at 4th Phase, Peenya
Industrial Estate, on account of which, the inmates of Maxi
Cab sustained injuries and out of them three passengers
by name Girish, Natraj and Gowramma died on the spot.
5. It is the further case of prosecution that
accused No.2 being the owner of the lorry has loaded the
big iron plates in the said lorry which was projecting more
than 5 ft. on both the sides and 5 ft. from the back side,
without taking any precautionary measures.
6. Charges were framed against accused No.1 for
the offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 of IPC
and against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence
punishable under Section 304 of IPC.
7. The prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses
and got marked 18 documents to establish its case. The
NC: 2024:KHC:9280
learned Sessions Judge was pleased to hold that no
criminal act can be attributed against accused No.2 for
want of concrete evidence and further held that the
offence committed by accused No.1 would attract the
ingredients of the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC and
not 304 of IPC.
8. The learned counsel for appellant has
contended that the evidence on record is not sufficient to
hold the appellant guilty of the offence for which he has
been convicted by the trial Court. He contends that there
are two versions with regard to the accident in question
and two views are possible and therefore, the view which
is favourable to the accused should be adopted. Pointing
out to the wound certificates of two of the injured namely
PW.3 and PW.8, which are marked as Exs.P8 and P7
respectively, he has contended that the history furnished
in the said documents is that the tempo suddenly hit a
canter goods carrier vehicle which was parked on the road.
NC: 2024:KHC:9280
He has therefore contended that the said history furnished
at the earliest point of time would reveal that the lorry in
question was parked on the road and the accused was not
driving the said lorry and therefore, he cannot be held
responsible for the accident. Drawing the attention of the
Court to the evidence of PW8, one of the passengers in the
maxi cab, the learned counsel has contended that
according to the said witness, the accident was on account
of the fault of tempo driver. It is further contended that
the appellant is only a driver of the lorry and he has not
loaded the iron plates and therefore, merely because he
was driving the lorry loaded with iron plates, even
admitting that the said iron plates were projecting out of
the lorry, it cannot be held that he was rash or negligent
in driving the said vehicle. He has contended that none of
the witnesses have stated that the lorry was being driven
in a rash manner. Hence, he contended that the accident
occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving by
the driver of the Maxi Cab. He contends that the trial
NC: 2024:KHC:9280
Court without properly appreciating the above aspects has
erroneously convicted the appellant.
9. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader has contended that PWs.2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 are the
injured passengers who were travelling in the Maxi Cab,
which was driven by PW4 and further PWs.1 and 2 are the
eye witnesses to the incident. He contends that the said
witnesses have categorically stated that the lorry was
loaded with big iron plates extending more than 5 ft. on
either side. He contends that the accused was driving the
lorry in a rash and negligent manner without taking any
precaution, which has resulted in the accident and three
persons died and six inmates of the Maxi Cab sustained
injuries. He contends that the learned Sessions Judge
having appreciated the entire evidence has rightly held the
accused guilty. He has therefore, sought to dismiss the
appeal.
10. PW1 is the first informant who lodged the
complaint. On the basis of which, FIR in Cr.No.149/2010
NC: 2024:KHC:9280
was registered at Peenya Traffic Police Station against the
driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-01-A-2169, for the
offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and
304 IPC.
11. PW14-Investigating Officer, after registering the
case has conducted investigation and filed charge sheet
against accused Nos.1 and 2 namely the driver and owner
of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-01-A-2169.
12. It is the specific case of prosecution that, the
accident took place on 12.05.2010 at about 10.30 p.m.,
opposite Sunakthi Solar Energy System Pvt. Ltd.,
4th phase, Peenya Industrial Area on account of the rash
and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. The owner
of the lorry was arraigned as accused No.2 on the ground
that he has permitted accused No.1 to transport the iron
plates in the lorry which was projecting 5 ft. on each side,
without taking any proper precautions. The learned
Sessions judge found him not guilty of the charge under
NC: 2024:KHC:9280
Section 304 of IPC and he was acquitted. The said finding
has become final.
13. PW1, who set the law into motion has deposed
in his evidence that he was working as a Manager in
Legend Solar Energy Company situated at Peenya. On the
date of incident, while he was standing near his parked car
in front of his Factory, at that time the lorry in question
came from NTTF side loaded with iron plates. He has
stated that the iron plates were protruding out and there
was no light or cloth tied to the iron plates and no
precaution was taken while driving the said vehicle loaded
with iron plates. He has further stated that, at that time,
a Maxi Cab was coming from the opposite side and the
iron plates which were projecting out of the lorry rubbed
against the Maxi Cab, due to which, the Maxi Cab got
damaged and hit against his car and the passengers in the
Maxi Cab sustained injuries and out of them, three
persons died on the spot. The suggestion put to the said
witness in the cross-examination that there was no head
NC: 2024:KHC:9280
light to the Maxi Cab and the accident occurred on account
of the fault of the driver of the Maxi Cab, has been denied
by the said witness.
14. Similarly, PW7 is another eye witness, who was
present at the spot at the time of the accident has also
deposed that the lorry was loaded with iron plates which
was projecting out and further deposed that the accident
occurred on account of the iron plates loaded in the said
lorry. There is nothing elicited in the cross-examination of
the witnesses to disbelieve their evidence.
15. PWs.2 to 4, 8 to 10 are the inmates of the Maxi
Cab who sustained injuries in the incident. Out of the said
witnesses, PW4 is the driver of Maxi Cab. Except PW3, the
other witnesses have supported the case of prosecution.
The prosecution has also got marked Exs.P7, P8, P11 to
P13 the wound certificates in respect of PWs.2, 3, 8 to 10
to show that the said witnesses were traveling in the Maxi
Cab and sustained injuries.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9280
16. The learned counsel for appellant has
contended that PWs.2 to 4 have not identified the accused
as the one who was driving the lorry. Hence, he sought to
extend the benefit of doubt to the accused. The said
contention cannot be accepted. Firstly, all the other
witnesses have identified the appellant/accused as the one
who was driving the lorry. Secondly, the accused has not
taken a specific defence that he was not driving the lorry
in question. Even in the statement recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C., except denying all the questions, the
appellant has not stated that he was not the driver of the
lorry or that he was not driving the lorry at the relevant
point of time. In view of reliable evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, it can be safely held that the
accused was driving the lorry in question at the time of
accident.
17. In Exs.P7 and 8, namely the wound certificates
of PWs.7 and 3, it is stated that the said injured were
travelling in a Tempo and the said Tempo hit a canter
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9280
goods carrier which was parked on the road. It is
contended by the learned counsel for appellant that as per
Exs.P7 and 8, the documents marked by the prosecution,
the lorry was parked and therefore, it is the Tempo which
hit against the said parked lorry.
18. The above contention of the learned counsel for
appellant cannot be accepted for the reason that it is
nobody's case that the lorry in question was parked at the
time of accident. PW8 has admitted in the
cross-examination that she informed the doctor that the
Maxi Cab in which they were travelling was hit against the
parked lorry. Except the said version, there are no
material on record to show that the lorry was parked at
the time of accident. All the other witnesses have
categorically stated that the accident occurred as the lorry
was being driven by loading the iron plates which were
projecting 5 ft. on either side. Even accepting the
contention that the lorry was parked, the fact remains that
the accused parked the lorry loaded with iron plates
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9280
projecting 5 ft. either side, without taking any precaution
or care and therefore, caused the accident on account of
his negligent act.
19. PW12 is the ARTO, who has issued Exs.P9 and
10 after inspecting both the vehicles. He has stated that
the accident has not occurred on account of mechanical
defect. He has noticed damages to the Maxi Cab. He
has specifically stated that the goods vehicle bearing
registration No.KA-01-A-2169 was not damaged. Hence,
it can be seen that the accident occurred on account of the
iron plates which was loaded in the lorry coming in contact
with the Maxi Cab. Hence, the lorry was not damaged as
it was only because of the iron plates, which were
protruding 5 ft. outside and hit the Maxi Cab.
20. A perusal of evidence of PW1 shows that the
driver of the Maxi Cab lost control of it and then hit
against his parked car. PW4, driver of the Maxi Cab has
stated that since the lorry was loaded with iron plates
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9280
which was projecting 5 ft. outside its body and as it was
dark and raining, the accident has occurred.
21. On an overall appreciation of the entire
evidence and material on record, this Court finds that the
judgment of the trial Court convicting the
appellant/accused No.1 for the offence punishable under
Section 279, 337, 338, 304A IPC is just and proper.
22. The accident has occurred in the year 2010.
13 years have lapsed. The appellant was aged about 55
years at the time of incident. It is submitted that he is
now aged about 68 years and his elder son died recently
due to liver Cirrhosis. He has therefore sought to take a
lenient view in the matter.
23. The trial Court has sentenced the appellant to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 01 year 06
months for the offence punishable under Section 304(A)
IPC, which is the substantive sentence. All the sentence
imposed for the offence punishable under Section 279,
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9280
337, 338 and 304(A) have been directed to run
concurrently.
24. Considering the entire facts and circumstances,
the sentence imposed against the appellant can be
modified. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The Judgment and Order dated 13.06.2013
passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track (Sessions)
Court, XVII, Bangalore City, in SC No.1341/2010,
convicting the appellant/accused No.1 for the offence
punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC is
confirmed.
iii. The sentence imposed for the offence
punishable under Section 304A of IPC is modified as
under:
(a) The appellant/accused No.1 shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9280
months for the offence punishable under
Section 304A IPC.
(b) The sentence imposed for the rest of the
offences and the fine imposed for all the
offences shall be intact.
(c) The appellant is entitled for set off for the
period he has already undergone in
custody, under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
(d) All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HB/TL
