Karnataka High Court
M.C.Nanjundaswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5468
CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1345 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. M.C.NANJUNDASWAMY,
S/O CHANNABASAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RETIRED KSRTC DRIVER,
R/AT 5014, II STAGE,
VIJAYANAGARA,
MYSURU-570 004.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.N.RADHA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY JAYAPURA POLICE, MYSURU,
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY THE
by DEVIKA M STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT DATED 03.07.2014 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.
J.M.F.C., MYSURU IN C.C.NO.595/2011 AND CONFIRMED AND
MODIFIED DATED 16.09.2016 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.167/2014 AND
ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5468
CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2016
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent State.
2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court and confirmation by the Appellate
Court convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. For the offence
punishable under Section 279 of IPC, the petitioner was
sentenced to undergo six months sentence and to pay a fine
of Rs.500/-. In respect of Section 338 of IPC, one year
sentence and Rs.500/- fine was imposed and in respect of
Section 304(A) of IPC, two years sentence and fine of
Rs.500/- was imposed.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, Criminal Appeal
No.167/2014 was filed and the same was allowed in part
confirming the conviction for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. The sentence imposed
by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections
279 and 338 of IPC was set aside and the sentence imposed
NC: 2025:KHC:5468
for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC was reduced to
one year. The fine imposed for the offences under Sections
279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC was confirmed and default
sentence of three months is imposed.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present
revision petition is filed before this Court.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner before this Court is that both the Trial Court and
the Appellate Court committed an error in accepting the
evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5. The learned counsel contend
that both the Courts failed to consider the admission given by
the injured pillow rider of the motorcycle P.W.2 and so also
P.W.1, who stated that the bus dashed against the right side
of the motorcycle and towards the left side of the motorcycle
there was a lot of space. This sole circumstance clearly
discloses that it is the negligence on the part of the rider of
the motorcycle that even though there was space on the left
side of the road, he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner. The learned counsel contend that P.W.4 has turned
hostile and the observation of the Trial Court is that P.W.5 is
an independent witness to the accident along with injured
NC: 2025:KHC:5468
P.W.2, but P.W.5 in his chief he says that road was very wide
at the accident place and further he admits that he could not
say the bus hit which part of the bike. The conduct of P.W.5
is unnatural as he did not make any effort to shift the injured
to the hospital. P.W.6 is the conductor of the bus. The Trial
Court fails to take note of the sketch Ex.P.13, which clearly
discloses that there was space of about 4 feet on the left side
of the motorcyclist and the same has not been properly
appreciated and hence it requires interference of this Court.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent State would contend
that the bus came in opposite direction and that too on the
wrong side on the extreme right side of the road and the
injured witness P.W.2 deposed the manner in which the bus
came and dashed against the motorcycle. P.W.5 is an eye-
witness to the accident. Having taking note of Ex.P.13, it is
clear that it depicts the place of the accident and the bus
went on the wrong side and dashed against the motorcyclists,
who were coming on the left side of the road. Hence, this
Court cannot find fault with the findings of both the Courts.
NC: 2025:KHC:5468
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent State and also taking note of the material
available on record, the points that arise for the consideration
of this Court are:
(i) Whether both the Courts committed an error
in convicting and sentencing and confirming
the same and whether it requires
interference of this Court exercising the
revisional jurisdiction and whether both the
order suffers from its legality and
correctness?
(ii) What order?
Point No.(i):
8. Having considered the submission of the learned
counsel for the respective parties and particularly the
document of Ex.P.13, it clearly discloses that the bus went on
the wrong side of the road and also on the extreme right side
of the road and the motorcyclist came in the proper direction
on the left side of the road. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that there was 4 feet space on the left side
of the motorcyclist and the said contention cannot be
NC: 2025:KHC:5468
accepted for the reason that the bus was proceeding from
H.D. Kote towards Mysore and the motorcyclist was coming
from Mysore to H.D.Kote and on the extreme right side of the
road, the accident was occurred. Mere 4 feet space on the
left side of the motorcycle cannot be a ground to come to the
conclusion that the accident was occurred on account of
negligence on the part of the motorcyclist. It is important to
note that there is no explanation with regard to what made
the driver of the bus to take the bus to the extreme right side
of the road in his 313 statement and also not led any defence
evidence. The injured eye-witness P.W.2 deposed the
manner in which the bus was driven. P.W.3 is not an eye-
witness and he categorically says that he came to know that
the bus came on the right side of the road and dashed against
the motorcyclist. Hence, P.W.3 cannot be treated as an eye-
witness. P.W.2, who was a pillion rider categorically says that
the bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the motorcycle and the rider of the motorcycle died at
the spot and he had sustained injuries and he gave the
statement before the police. In the cross-examination, even
the defence also elicited that the bus came on the right side
NC: 2025:KHC:5468
and dashed against the motorcycle. P.W.2 says that space
was there on the left side of the motorcycle, but the same
cannot be a ground when the driver of the bus went on the
extreme right side of the road and dashed against him.
P.W.2 categorically says that on account of the impact of
dashing against the motorcycle, both of them fell on the left
side of the road.
9. P.W.5 also speaks about the vehicle moving in the
opposite direction and the bus driver drove the same in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
motorcyclist. He also categorically says that on the left side
of the bus even other bus also can move and that much space
was there on the road. In the cross-examination of this
witness, he categorically says that he saw the accident at a
distance of 150 feet, but he cannot say to which part the bus
dashed against the motorcycle, but he can say that the bus
dashed against the motorcycle.
10. Having taken note of the evidence of P.W.2 and
P.W.5, their evidence is consistent. Apart from that, the
documentary evidence of Ex.P.13 sketch depicts the place of
the accident and when the driver of the bus went and dashed
NC: 2025:KHC:5468
against the motorcycle on the extreme right side of the road,
I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court as well as
First Appellate Court in appreciating the evidence on record.
There is no perversity in the findings of both the Courts. It is
important to note that though the Trial Court convicted and
imposed the sentence for all the offences, the sentence of two
years is reduced to one year in the Appellate Court. The
accident was taken place in 2011. The learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 70
years and at the time of filing the revision petition, his age is
shown as 61. Taking note of the factual aspects of the case
that it is an accident and also considering the age of the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is suffering from heart ailment and when
such being the case, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence
from one year to six months with fine of Rs.50,000/- as
against Rs.1,500/-. Out of Rs.50,000/-, an amount of
Rs.40,000/- is payable to the parents of the deceased, if any,
alive. If no parents, the same is payable to P.W.1, who is the
brother of the deceased, on proper identification. The
remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall vest with the State.
NC: 2025:KHC:5468
The conviction and sentence in respect of Section 279 of IPC
is set aside since the ingredients of offence under Section 279
of IPC merges with the severe offence of Section 304(A) of
IPC.
Point No.(ii):
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The sentence is reduced to six months from
one year with fine of Rs.50,000/- as against
Rs.1,500/-.
(iii) Out of Rs.50,000/-, an amount of Rs.40,000/-
is payable to the parents of the deceased, if
any alive. If no parents, the same is payable
to P.W.1, brother of the deceased, on proper
identification. Remaining amount of
Rs.10,000/- shall vest with the State.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
