Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sunil vs State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3085
CRL.RP No. 1046 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1046 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SUNIL,
S/O RAMASWAMYGOWDA @ RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.24, 2ND MAIN,
4TH CROSS, GOVINDARAJANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040.
PERMANENT ADDRESS AT:
HOUSE NO.77, KURIMANDI,
MYSURU-560 007.
ALSO AT:
NO.80/10/1, 2ND MAIN,
GOVINDARAJANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M ...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA C., ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KADUR POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3085
CRL.RP No. 1046 of 2019
PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.18/2017 ORDER DATED 21.06.2019 BY
THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKAMGALURU AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.1030/2012 ORDER DATED
05.01.2017 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR.
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 matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State. The
records are also secured. Hence, with the consent of both the
learned counsel heard the matter on merits.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution
while invoking the offences punishable under Sections 279,
338 and 304A of IPC against the accused, it is alleged that on
05.04.2012, the complainant driver of the KSRTC bus drove
the bus from Sirsi to Mangalore and the driver of the car i.e.,
the petitioner herein came to Kadur at 1.30 a.m. and on
06.04.2012 on NH-206 drove the car in a rash and negligent
manner near Pragna School and dashed to the right portion of
the bus even though the driver of the bus took the bus to the
NC: 2025:KHC:3085
extreme left side of the road noticing the car was driven in a
rash and negligent manner. As a result, one of the inmates
of the car succumbed to the injuries and the driver of the car
also sustained injuries and the injured persons were shifted to
the hospital. The police registered the case against the
petitioner and investigated the matter and filed the charge
sheet. The petitioner was summoned and he did not plead
guilty and hence trial was conducted and the prosecution
examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked the documents at
Exs.P.1 to 19(a). The petitioner was examined under Section
313 of Cr.P.C and not led any defence evidence. The Trial
Court having considered the evidence of the eye-witnesses,
seizure mahazar witnesses and the prosecution witnesses,
accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted and
sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 279 of IPC for three months and imposed a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in respect of Section 338 of IPC, imposed a
fine of Rs.1,000/- with three months simple imprisonment
and in respect of Section 304A of IPC, sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/-.
NC: 2025:KHC:3085
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was
filed in Crl.A.No.18/2017 and the Appellate Court on re-
appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and
dismissed the appeal.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present
revision petition is filed before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that both the Courts committed an error
in appreciating the evidence available on record and relied
upon the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 who are the interested
witnesses to the case of the prosecution that they are the
driver and conductor of the KSRTC bus. The learned counsel
contend that P.W.5 though being an injured and inmate of the
car has not supported the case of the prosecution and hence
the Trial Court committed an error. The Trial Court and the
Appellate Court failed to analyze how the accident occurred.
Ex.P.18 sketch clearly shows that the accident was taken
place on NH-206, which is a narrow road with width of 24 feet
and both the Courts failed to consider the material on record
NC: 2025:KHC:3085
and hence it requires interference of this Court by exercising
the revisional jurisdiction and the impugned order suffers
from its legality and correctness.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent State would contend
that P.W.1 and P.W.3 are the driver and conductor of the bus.
The evidence of P.W.1 is clear that having noticed the manner
in which the petitioner drove the vehicle, he took the bus to
the extreme left side of the road, but the petitioner came and
dashed against the parked bus. As a result, one of the
inmates of the car died and the petitioner also sustained
injuries and another inmate P.W.5 sustained injuries. Ex.P.18
clearly depicts that this revision petitioner went on the wrong
side and dashed against the right portion of the bus. The
photographs which are placed on record clearly indicate the
manner in which the petitioner went and dashed against the
bus and the front portion of the car was clearly damaged.
Hence, both the Courts have not committed any error and
there are no perversity in the findings of the Trial Court and
hence the question of invoking the revisional jurisdiction does
not arise.
NC: 2025:KHC:3085
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent State and also having perused the material on
record i.e., lower Court records, the points that arise for the
consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the Trial Court and the Appellate
Court committed an error in convicting and
sentencing the petitioner and confirming the
order of the Trial Court both in respect of
conviction and sentence and whether it
requires interference of this Court by
exercising the revisional jurisdiction
regarding the legality and correctness of the
order?
(ii) What order?
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respective partition, the main contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that P.W.1 and P.W.3 are the
interested witnesses. It is not in dispute that P.W.1 and
P.W.3 are the driver and conductor of the bus. Having
perused the evidence of P.W.1, he categorically deposes that
having noticed the petitioner driving the vehicle in a rash and
NC: 2025:KHC:3085
negligent manner and when he was coming on the wrong
side, he took the bus on the extreme left side of the road.
The photographs which are marked before the Trial Court
clearly discloses that the bus was on the extreme left side of
the road and the accident spot is on the edge of the road. The
fact that this petitioner was moving in the opposite direction
of the bus is also not in dispute. The photographs Exs.P.3
and 4 also clearly discloses that front portion of the car was
completely damaged and it clearly depicts the place of the
accident. Apart from that, sketch Ex.P.18 clearly indicates
the place of accident and the same corroborates with the
photograph Exs.P.3 and 4. Merely because P.W.1 and P.W.3
are the driver and the conductor of the bus, their evidence
cannot be disbelieved. No doubt, P.W.5 turned hostile and he
is an inmate of the car. The fact is that he also sustained
injury, but he says that at the time of the accident he was
sleeping and when he woke he witnessed the accident and
given the evidence before the Trial Court regarding the
manner in which the accident took place and it is a case of res
ipsa loquitur and the things itself speaks about the manner in
which the accident was taken place. When such being the
NC: 2025:KHC:3085
case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in
appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record. The Appellate Court also having considered the
material on record, re-appreciated both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record and reasons are also given that
due to negligence of the accused, a person lost his life who
was an inmate of the car and others including the petitioner
sustained injuries in the accident. The fact that P.W.5 was in
the hospital for a period of ten days is not in dispute and his
daughter and wife also sustained injuries. All of them took
treatment for about two months in the hospital and the
gravity of the offence is also taken note of. The fact that it is
an accident also is not in dispute. The material available on
record is discussed in detail by the Trial Court and hence I do
not find any perversity in the finding of the Trial Court as well
as confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court. Hence,
it does not require interference of this Court with regard to
conviction is concerned.
9. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the
offences punishable under Section 279 as well as Section
304A of IPC and when the offence under Section 304A of IPC
NC: 2025:KHC:3085
is invoked, the Trial Court ought not to have considered
Section 279 of IPC. Section 279 of IPC merges with the
ingredients of Section 304A of IPC. Hence, the judgment of
conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under
Section 279 of IPC requires interference. However, taking
note of invoking of the offence under Section 338 of IPC is
concerned, I do not find any error committed by the Trial
Court since the injured persons have taken the treatment and
P.W.5 deposed before the Court that he had sustained
grievous injuries and he was an inpatient for a period of ten
days and hence it does not require interference of this Court.
10. Having taken note of the factual aspects of the
case, the accident occurred at 1.45 a.m. and this accident
was taken place in 2012, almost more than a decade ago and
one person lost his life. The Apex Court has held that in a
case of Section 304A of IPC, the Court has to take note of the
gravity of the offence and the punishment should also
commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Having
considered the factual aspects of the case that the accident
occurred in the midnight and considering the principle of res
ipsa loquitur, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence from
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3085
one year to six months. Hence, I answer the point for
consideration partly in the affirmative.
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in
part.
(ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence for the offence punishable under
Section 279 of IPC is set aside and no
interference with regard to the conviction
for the offence punishable under Sections
338 and 304A of IPC. The sentence of
one year is reduced to six months.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
