Karnataka High Court

Naveen vs State Of Karnataka on 12 November, 2024

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                        -1-
                                                     NC: 2024:KHC:45756
                                                CRL.RP No. 572 of 2017




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

                                      BEFORE

                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

                   CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 572 OF 2017

            BETWEEN:

            NAVEEN
            S/O JANADRA ACHARI,
            AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
            OCCUPATION COOLI WORK
            R/O YADEHALLI VILLAGE,
            ANANDAPURAM HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK
            SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 401.
                                                            ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI. GANGADHARA D.C., ADVOCATE FOR
                SRI. HARISH KUMAR, M.S., ADVOCATE)

            AND:

            STATE OF KARNATAKA
            REPRESENTED BY PSI SAGAR RURAL STATION
            SAGAR TOWN
            SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT- 577 401
Digitally   REP BY GOVT PP, HIGH COURT BUILDING.
signed by
MALATESH
KC                                                        ...RESPONDENT
            (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF         THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PLEASED TO
KARNATAKA   SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 27.02.2017
            PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
            SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT SAGAR IN CRL.A.NO.10022/2016 AND
            CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 9.12.2016
            PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL J.M.F.C., SAGAR IN C.C.NO.277/2012.

                THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
            ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

            CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                              -2-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:45756
                                     CRL.RP No. 572 of 2017




                         ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.Gangadhara D.C, learned Counsel

representing for Sri.Harish Kumar M.S for the revision

petitioner and Sri.Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court

Government Pleader for the State/respondent.

2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in

C.C.No.277/2012, confirmed in Crl.A.No.10022/2016 is

the before this Court.

3. Facts in nutshell for disposal of the revision

petition is as under;

Accused has been charge sheeted for the offence

punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC pursuant

to the complaint lodged with Sagar Rural Police Station

contending that on 15.12.2011 at about 3.30 p.m. when

the complainant was proceeding on the road in front of

Ranganatha Medical Shop of Anandapura on NH 206 main

road, accused came from the back side on a motor cycle

bearing Registration No.KA-15/Q-9494 from Dasakoppa

NC: 2024:KHC:45756

Circle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against

the complainant resulting in complainant sustaining

grievous injuries. He took treatment for a period of two

months and got discharged from the hospital. However, he

developed some complications in leg and on 16.03.2012

he unable to bear the pain and intended to visit

Shivamogga for higher medical care in a private vehicle.

However, on the way to the hospital, he died. Police after

thorough investigation filed the charge sheet against the

accused.

4. Learned Trial Magistrate summoned the

accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not

guilty. As such trial was held.

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

prosecution in all examined eleven witnesses and placed

on record as Exs.P.1 to P.11.

6. Detailed cross-examination of prosecution

witnesses did not yield any positive materials to disbelieve

NC: 2024:KHC:45756

the case of the prosecution, except for the fact that

injured got discharged from hospital and subsequently

died on account of infection.

7. Accused statement as is contemplated under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused have

denied all the incriminatory materials. No defence

evidence was placed on record nor any written statement

as is contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C. was

filed on behalf of the accused.

8. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the

parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the

oral and documentary evidence placed on record acquitted

the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279

and 304(A) of IPC and awarded the sentence of six

months imprisonment for the offence punishable under

Section 279 of IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default

sentence of one month imprisonment and for the offence

punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC awarded fine of

Rs.5,000/- and one year imprisonment with a default

NC: 2024:KHC:45756

sentence of three months imprisonment. Being aggrieved

by the same accused filed Criminal Appeal before the V

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga.

9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after

securing the records, heard the parties in detail and

dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 27.02.2017

confirming the order of sentence passed by the learned

Magistrate.

10. Being further aggrieved by the same, revision

petitioner is before this Court, in this revision.

11. Sri. Gangadhara D.C learned counsel

representing Sri. Harish Kumar M.S for the revision

petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the

memorandum of petition vehemently contended that the

prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the

accident and the death of the injured.

12. Admittedly, the injured was discharged from the

hospital and due to some complication has taken place on

NC: 2024:KHC:45756

account of the improper care of the wound, accused

cannot be held liable for the offence under Section 304(A)

of IPC and at the most he would held for the offence

punishable under Section 279 of IPC and 338 of IPC and

sought for allowing of the revision petition.

13. Per contra, Sri. Vinaj Mahadevaiah, learned

High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned

judgment. He points out that the postmortem report is not

challenged seriously by the revision petitioner and the

opinion given by the doctor who is the autopsy surgeon

would go to show that death of deceased is on account of

injury sustained by him in a road traffic accident occurred

on 15.12.2011 and sought for dismissal of the revision

petition.

14. In reply, Sri. Gangadhara D.C learned counsel

for the revision petitioner contended that in the event of

this Court upholding the conviction, taking note of the

relevant aspects of the matter and death has taken place

three months of the accident , Court may enhance the fine

NC: 2024:KHC:45756

amount and set aside the imprisonment period in view of

the fact that the accused has lost his mother and he has

got a young girl child and to maintain the family.

15. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court

perused the material on record meticulously.

16. On such perusal of the material on record, it

would establish that road traffic accident occurred on

15.12.2011 involving the motor cycle bearing registration

No.KA-15/Q-9494 in front of the Ranganath Medical shop

on NH 206 of Anandapura village is established by the

prosecution by witnessing cogent materials on record. Fact

of the complainant sustaining the injury is also established

by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on

record.

17. However, after the discharge from the hospital,

injured did not take care of the wound properly and he

developed acute pain in the injury side and therefore

decided to visit the Shivamogga town for the purpose of

NC: 2024:KHC:45756

higher medical care on private vehicle and on en route he

lost his life.

18. What is transpired in the interregnum, that is,

from the date of discharge till date of his death, is not

properly established by the prosecution, so as to establish

direct nexus between the death of the injured and the

accident injury caused on account of the negligent riding of

the motor cycle. However, postmortem report having not

been properly questioned by the revision petitioner, and

the opinion of the doctor would go to show that there is

nexus, this court is of the considered opinion that

conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC needs no interference.

19. But on the question of sentence is concerned,

since the death has taken place after three months and in

between the injured was cured in the hospital and he was

discharged from the hospital, this Court is of the opinion

that directing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment

NC: 2024:KHC:45756

for a day and by enhancing the fine amount by

Rs.1,00,000/- which is payable as compensation to the

family of the victim would meet the ends of justice in the

peculiar and attendant facts and circumstance of the case

on hand.

20. Accordingly, following:

ORDER

i. Revision petition is allowed in part.

ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused

for the offence punishable under Section 279

and 304(A) of IPC, sentence imposed by the trial

Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate

Court is modified as under;

(a) Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment

for a day till rising of the Court and ordered to

pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (in

all Rs.1,06,000/-). Out of the fine amount

recovered, sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is ordered to