Karnataka High Court
B.Y.Nagaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 23 January, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3138
CRL.RP No. 1372 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1372 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
B.Y.NAGARAJU
S/O ELLASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT THONDAVADI VILLAGE,
GUNDLUPETE TALUK - 571123
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BEGURU POLICE STATION
GUNDLUPETE TQ - 571123
Digitally signed ...RESPONDENT
by DEVIKA M (BY SRI M DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 02.12.2014
PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUNDLUPETE IN
C.C.NO.326/2010 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3138
CRL.RP No. 1372 of 2015
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
2. This petition is filed against the conviction order
dated 02.12.2014 for the offences punishable under Section
279 and 304A of CPC and acquitted for the other offences
passed in c.c.No.326/2010 by the trial court and the said order
is confirmed by the first appellate court in Crl.A.No.15/2014.
Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and confirmation,
the present revision petition is filed.
3. The counsel for the petitioner mainly contend that
both the courts have completely erred in believing the evidence
of complainant and discarded the case of the petitioner. The
counsel also would vehemently contend that during the course
of arguments, the trial court and the first appellate court relied
upon the evidence of PW1 and PW1's evidence is clear that he
was not an eye witness and he came to know about the
accident only after hearing screaming sound and hence, he
cannot be termed as eye-witness and he did not see the vehicle
and accident was also occurred on the edge of the road and
also bike was lying on the edge of the tar road in a mud area
NC: 2025:KHC:3138
hence, relying upon the evidence of PW1 as an eye-witness
cannot be accepted. The counsel contend that PW2 is the son
of victim and he is not an eye-witness and he is hearsay
witness. PW3 is the mahazar witness and other witnesses are
the investigating officers. Both the courts failed to appreciate
the answer elicited from the mouth of PW1. The counsel also
contends that incident was taken place in the year 2010 and
sentence imposed is also exorbitant and not commensurate
with the gravity of the offence and incident was taken place in
the night and hence, this court has to exercise the revisional
jurisdiction.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
State would vehemently contend that even though eye-witness
is only PW1, his evidence is credible since he was along with
the deceased at the time of accident and he only shifted the
injured to the hospital and hence, his evidence cannot be
disbelieved and both the courts rightly appreciated the
evidence available on record and the court has to take note of
quality of the evidence available on record and not the number
of witnesses. No doubt, other witnesses are not eye-witnesses
and they are mahazar witness; son of the victim and
NC: 2025:KHC:3138
investigating officers. The counsel contends that the court has
to take note of Ex.P6 - Sketch which is clear that accident was
occurred on the edge of the road and same is also spoken by
PW1, hence, his evidence cannot be discarded.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also on perusal of the material on
record, the point that would raised for consideration of this
court that:
1. Whether both the courts have committed an error
in convicting and sentencing and confirming the
same and whether it requires interference of this
court?
2. What order?
Point No.1
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also on perusal of the material on
record, it is clear that the scope of revision is very limited and
the court has to take note of legality and correctness of the
order. Having considered the scope and ambit of the revision is
concerned, no doubt, the witness -PW1 is the only eye-witness
NC: 2025:KHC:3138
to the incident, he categorically deposed with regard to the fact
that when the incident occurred, he was on the left side of the
road. No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to
notice of this Court answer elicited from him that he
immediately noticed the screaming sound of the victim, took
the injured to the hospital. It is also important to note that in
his chief evidence, he categorically deposes after alighting from
the bus, they were moving towards the Village and at that
time, motorcyclist came and hit him along with the deceased.
In the cross-examination of P.W.1, no doubt as contended by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, he says that on hearing
screaming sound, he immediately came to know about the
incident and he was on the left side of the road and he did not
notice any other vehicle and he did not overturn. But, he
categorically says that accident occurred on the left side of the
road and Ex.P6 clearly depicts the place of the accident. Apart
from that, he also categorically states that motor cycle lying on
the left side of the road i.e., in the mud road which is beside
the tar road. When such answer is given, the Court also cannot
expect mathematical niceties, when the incident was witnessed
by the eye witness and the fact that he shifted the injured to
NC: 2025:KHC:3138
the hospital is not in dispute. When such being the case, the
very contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that his
evidence cannot be believed cannot be accepted since he was
on his left side.
7. Apart from that when the other witnesses are not
eye witnesses, the Court has to take note of quality of evidence
available on record and not the number of evidence and the
injured was admitted to the hospital immediately after the
accident and thereafter he succumbed to the injuries, even
though he was shifted to Higher Centre on the same day. When
such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. However, taking note
of the offences which have been invoked, the offence under
Section 279 merges with Section 304(A) IPC, since the accident
converts with death of a victim and the Trial Court committed
an error in convicting the accused under Section 279 IPC and
also imposing punishment for the offence under Section 304(A)
IPC. Having taken note of the material on record, the incident
has taken place in 2010 and the Trial Court convicted and
sentenced the petitioner for a period of one year and the same
has to be reduced to six months as held in catena of judgments
NC: 2025:KHC:3138
and minimum sentence must be six months for the offence
under Section 304(A) IPC and the same is reduced taking note
of the fact that incident took place almost 1½ decade.
8. Hence, having taken note of the material on record,
when the incident has taken place 14½ years back, it is
appropriate to reduce the sentence from one year to six
months for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC.
Therefore, it requires interference of this Court in part
exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, I answer
point No.(1) in 'partly affirmative'.
Point No.2
9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned order convicting the petitioner
for the offence under Section 279 IPC is set
aside and the conviction of the petitioner for
the offence punishable under Section 304(A)
NC: 2025:KHC:3138
IPC is upheld and confirmed. However the
sentence is reduced to six months from one
year without altering the fine amount.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN/ST
