Karnataka High Court
Sri N Chandra vs State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6306
CRL.RP No. 764 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.764 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI N CHANDRA
S/O L GOVINDA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NARKOLI, HARKUR VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576103
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed BRAMHAVARA POLICE STATION
by DEVIKA M REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU- 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 16.06.2017 MADE IN
C.C.NO.1340/2013 BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. UDUPI AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6306
CRL.RP No. 764 of 2022
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 16.06.2017 passed in
C.C.No.1340/2013 by the Trial Court and judgment dated
23.03.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.36/2017 by the First
Appellate Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
3. The case of the prosecution before the Trial
Court that on 05.04.2013 at about 3.15 p.m., accused
being a driver of bus bearing Reg. No.KA20-B-4428 drove
the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to
endanger human life from Udupi side towards Kundapura
and near Kudrubettu, Uppoor village of Udupi taluk, he
dashed it to a scooter bearing Reg. No.KA20-E-3443 which
NC: 2025:KHC:6306
was coming from the side of Kundapura towards Udupi, as
a result of the accident, rider and pillion rider of the said
scooter were sustained grievous injuries and the rider of
the said vehicle succumbed to the injuries on 06.04.2013
at about 1.20 p.m. at KMC Hospital, Manipal. The case was
registered based on the complaint given by CW1, spot
mahazar was drawn and vehicle involved in the accident
was seized at the time of investigation. After completion
of investigation, charge sheet has been filed. The Trial
Court took cognizance and after ordering for registration of
case, issued process to accused and accused not pleaded
guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution,
examined 11 witnesses as PW1 to PW11 and got marked
the documents at Ex.P1 to P18. On the other hand,
accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence
however, he was subjected to 313 statement. The Trial
Court considered the evidence of PW1 and PW11 who are
the eye-witnesses and accepted the case of the
NC: 2025:KHC:6306
prosecution since both of them speak that at the time of
the accident, bus was coming in a high speed in front of
them and deceased was ahead of their vehicle and PW9 is
the circumstantial witness who got released the bus from
interim custody and he is a power of attorney holder and
he deposed that accused was the driver of the offending
bus on the date of accident and taking into note of the
material on record, the Trial Court convicted and sentence
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
279, 338 and 304A of IPC.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial
Court, an appeal was filed and the First Appellate Court on
re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record particularly considering the evidence of
PW1 and PW11 and also the contents of the complaint and
so also considering the fact that there is no explanation on
the part of the accused in 313 statement and also
considering the place of accident and mode of the accident
and also considering the sketch comes to the conclusion
NC: 2025:KHC:6306
the Trial Court has not committed any error considering
the documents produced before it and confirmed the order
of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent
order of both the Courts, the present revision petition is
filed.
6. The main contention of the counsel for the
petitioner that both the Courts have committed an error in
considering the admission made by PW1 and PW11 though
their evidence is not credible evidence. Apart from that
the counsel also contend that in fact the sketch at Ex.P10
establish the left side of the road was closed for
construction of road and all the vehicles were moving on
the other side of the road, the road width shown in the
sketch measures 30 feet and according to the prosecution
accident taken place on 22 feet away from the left side of
the road that means, another 8 feet road was very much
available to a two wheeler and he would driven the vehicle
on the extreme left side and same has not been
considered by both the Courts. The counsel further
NC: 2025:KHC:6306
submits that the injured is not examined before the Trial
Court. Hence, this Court has to exercise the revisional
jurisdiction.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the State would vehemently contend that motorcycle was
coming in the opposite direction and bus was proceeding
from Kundapura to Udupi and PW1 who is an eye-witness
categorically deposed regarding the manner in which the
petitioner driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against the motorcycle and PW11 is also
another eye-witness who was coming behind the deceased
wherein he categorically deposed that driver of the bus
came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
the motorcycle. Part from that PW3 and PW4 are the
doctors one who treated the injured and another one who
conducted post mortem of the deceased and PW6 is IMV
inspector who speaks about the IMV report and PW9 is the
GAP holder of the RC owner of the offending bus who got
released the bus and he also categorically says that on the
NC: 2025:KHC:6306
date of accident, the petitioner was driving the bus and
the counsel contend that having considered the material
on record, both the Courts rightly convicted and sentenced
the petitioner and hence, it does not requires interference
of this Court.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties and also considering the material on
record, the points that would arise for consideration of this
Court are:
1. Whether both the Courts committed an error in
convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the
offences punishable under Sections 279, 338
and 304A of IPC and whether this Court can
exercise the revisional jurisdiction?
2. What order?
Point No.1:
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
respective parties and also on perusal of the material on
record, it discloses that the specific case of the prosecution
NC: 2025:KHC:6306
is that the revision petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle
which was coming in the opposite direction, as a result,
the rider of the motorcycle succumbed to the injuries and
pillion rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries.
The prosecution also relies upon the evidence of PW1 who
is an eye-witness and PW1 deposed that on 05.04.2013,
he was proceeding in the motorcycle from Bramhavara
towards Uppuru and when he was near the Laxmi bar, bus
came from Udupi side towards Bramhavara in a rash and
negligent manner and at that time, deceased and injured
Prashanth were proceeding from Bramhavara towards
Udupi and the driver of the bus came towards right side
and dashed against the motorcycle and as a result, both of
them have sustained injuries and rider of the vehicle
succumbed to the injuries. PW1 was subjected to the cross
examination wherein he deposed that he witnessed the
accident at the distance of 20 meters and immediately
after witnessing the accident, he went to the spot and
there are 30 persons were gathered there and he also
NC: 2025:KHC:6306
categorically admitted that at the time of the accident,
vehicles are moving in one road since there was a work in
progress in other road and he also identifies the accused.
10. The other eye-witness is PW11 who also
categorically says that motorcycle was proceeding ahead
of him and at that time bus came in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the motorcycle and also he
admits in the cross-examination that accident was
occurred on the left side of the road that is Bramhavara
towards Udupi and motorcycle was not comes under the
wheel of the bus but and he categorically denies the
suggestion that motorcyclist came towards the right side
and also denies the suggestion that bus was proceeding in
slow manner.
11. Having considering the evidence of PW1 and
PW11 and also the document at Ex.P10, it is clear that
width of the road is 30 feet and bus came in a opposite
direction and accident was occurred at the distance of 22
feet on the side of the bus and motorcycle was on the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6306
other side at the distance of 8 feet from the edge of the
road. Ex.P10 also not disputed and apart from that IMV
report also marked as Ex.P11 which clearly discloses the
damages caused to the bus as well as motorcycle. Having
considered the evidence of PW1 and PW11 and
documentary evidence, it is very clear that driver of the
bus went on the right side of the road even though there
was a 22 feet road on his direction and dashed against the
motorcycle. Having considering both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record, the very contention of the
counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts committed
an error in appreciating both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record cannot be accepted when the
Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court taken note of
both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in a
proper perspective having taken note of some
photographs at Ex.P3 and P4 which depicts the place of
accident. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with
the finding of Trial Court with regard to the accident is
concerned.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6306
12. However, taking into note of conviction and
sentence is concerned, the Trial Court committed an error
in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 279 of IPC since the ingredients
of Section 279 merges with serious offence of Section
304A of IPC and hence, the Trial Court ought not to have
convicted and sentence the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 279 of IPC and hence, it requires
interference.
13. However, considering the order of conviction
and sentence in respect of Section 338 of IPC is
concerned, the Trial Court imposed three months of simple
imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in respect of
Section 304A of IPC is concerned, the Trial Court imposed
only one year imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-.
Having considered the factual aspects of the case, the
accident was occurred in the year 2013 that means, more
than a decade and same could be reduced to six months
by increasing the fine amount since the Trial Court only
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6306
imposed Rs.1,000/-. Hence, the accused is ordered to pay
fine of Rs.75,000/- and same is payable to the parents of
the deceased on proper identification. Hence, I answer
the above point accordingly.
Point No.2:
14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following
ORDER
The revision petition is allowed in part.
The judgment of conviction and sentence dated
16.06.2017 for the offence punishable under Section 279
of IPC is set aside and the conviction and sentence in
respect of offences punishable under Sectiond 338 and
304A of IPC is upheld and sentence is modified reducing
the same to six months instead of one year increasing the
fine amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.75,000/-. Out of
Rs.75,000/-, Rs.70,000/- is payable to the mother of the
deceased if she is alive or otherwise to the father if he is
alive. If parents are not alive, pay the amount to the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6306
family members of the deceased on proper identification
within six weeks from today. The remaining amount of
Rs.5,000/- shall vest with the state.
If fine amount is not paid within six weeks, the order
of the Trial Court subsists with regard to sentence also.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
