Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunath H R @ Manjunatha vs State Of Karnataka on 25 January, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3346
CRL.RP No. 321 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 321 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MANJUNATH H.R.
@ MANJUNATHA
S/O RUDRESH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.3
1ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS
SHARADA NAGARA,
VASANTHPURA
BENGALURU SOUTH.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SARASWATHI M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHETHAN D.T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH BY CHELUR POLICE
COURT OF REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001.
...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 OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED AGAINST HIM BY
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 21.08.2023 AND ALSO
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3346
CRL.RP No. 321 of 2024
CONFIRMED BY THE HONOURABLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN CRL.A.NO.92/2023 DATED
04.01.2024 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS CRL.RP BY
ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER THAT FOR THE
REASONS STATED ABOVE.
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 and I have heard
learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for the
respondent-State and perused the records which are secured
before this Court.
2. This revision petition is filed against the conviction
and sentence passed against the petitioner in C.C.No.42/2018
for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and Section
304(A) of IPC.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution
before the Trial Court is that on 27.10.2017 at about 10.30
a.m. at Sathenahalli Gate on Chelur-Tumkauru road near
Nandini Milk Dairy, when C.W.2 had been to bring milk in the
NC: 2025:KHC:3346
said dairy by parking his two wheeler TVS Excel Heavy duty
bearing Reg.No.KA-06-U-6882 on left side of the road and the
deceased Tarun was sitting on the said two wheeler of C.W.2.
Suddenly, accused drove his Tata Indica car bearing
Reg.No.KA-50-A-1665 in a rash and negligent manner
endangering human life from Chelur towards Tumakuru side
and dashed against TVS Excel vehicle and due to the said
impact, Tarun fell down and sustained injuries on his head,
legs, hands. Next day at about 11.30 a.m., said Tarun
succumbed to the injuries.
4. The police have registered the case and recorded
the statement of the witnesses and filed the charge sheet and
the accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and
prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 8 and got
marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P12. On the other hand,
the accused was subjected to 313 statement and he has not led
defence evidence.
5. Having considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, who
are eye witnesses to the incident and though P.W.3 turned
hostile and he was cross-examined, believing the evidence of
NC: 2025:KHC:3346
P.Ws.1 to 4 and also documentary evidence of Ex.P10-sketch
and Ex.P11-IMV report and also photographs which have been
produced as Exs.P3 and P4 comes to the conclusion that the
accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of the
petitioner and convicted the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Sections 279 and Section 304(A) of IPC.
6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, an
appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court and the First
Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, comes to the
conclusion that the defence raised by the accused is that, it is
deceased Tarun himself ridden TVS Excel vehicle and dashed
against the car, but there is no oral or documentary evidence to
substantiate the defence of the accused that he avoided
occurrence of the accident. Hence, not accepted the arguments
of learned counsel for the appellant and comes to the
conclusion that the accused has not led any defence evidence
to prove the case. Having considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to
4 and other witnesses, accepted the case of the prosecution
and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the concurrent
finding, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:3346
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court not considered the material on record and eye
witnesses are close relatives of the deceased and interested
witnesses and deceased himself was riding the two wheeler and
he contributed to the accident. Learned counsel would contend
that it is fault of the complainant's husband that, he ought to
have taken the deceased along with him when he had parked
the vehicle besides the main road, where there is a moving of
heavy vehicle and the evidence of prosecution is not credible
and both the Courts failed to take note of the defence set out
during the course of cross-examination. Hence, it requires
interference.
8. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent-State
would vehemently contend that both the Courts have taken
note of evidence of eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 and also taken
note of the place of accident and particularly relied upon the
documents of photographs of the car Exs.P3 and P4 and also
photographs of two wheeler i.e., Exs.P5 and P6 and sketch
Exs.P10 and Ex.P11-IMV report and the same corroborates the
NC: 2025:KHC:3346
oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. Hence, it does not require
interference.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned HCGP for the respondent-State and also on perusal of
the material on record, the points that would arise for
consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court committed an error in not
considering the material on record and given
perverse finding and whether it requires
interference by exercising revisional
jurisdiction?
(ii) What order?
Point No.(i)
10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned HCGP for the respondent-State, the factual matrix of
the case of the prosecution is that C.W.2 along with deceased
had been to purchase milk in the two wheeler TVS Excel, at
that time, the driver of Tata India car i.e., the petitioner herein
drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the parked vehicle and the boy, who is aged about 9
NC: 2025:KHC:3346
years sustained injuries in the accident and he succumbed to
the injuries. The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 4 and no doubt, P.Ws.1 to 4 are relative witnesses of
the deceased i.e., uncle and aunt, the Court has to take note of
evidence of P.W.3 and he says that about three years back at
about 10.30 a.m., when he went to Nandini Milk Dairy to bring
milk, he saw Tata Indica car which was driven by the petitioner
in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against two
wheeler, TVS Excel and nephew of P.W.1 sustained injuries. He
also categorically says that, immediately after the incident, the
injured boy was shifted to hospital by the petitioner as well as
P.Ws.1 and 2 and he identified the accused and he was treated
partly hostile. During the cross-examination, he categorically
made the statement before the Investigating Officer and also
identified the photographs of the vehicle which was involved in
the accident i.e., Exs.P3 to P6.
11. The other independent witness is P.W.4, who is a
Computer Operator at Sathenahalli Gate and he also reiterates
the averments in terms of the charges made against the
petitioner and categorically says that injured Tarun fell down
and he himself, P.Ws.1 and 2 and others, including the driver of
NC: 2025:KHC:3346
the car rushed to said Tarun, who had sustained injuries and
immediately he was shifted to the hospital by this petitioner as
well as others who were present at the spot. The Trial Court
having taken note of this evidence available on record, though
cross-examined in detail, the defence in the cross-examination
of this witness is that deceased Tarun himself drove TVS Excel
and the same was categorically denied and in order to prove
the said defence, the petitioner has not entered into witness
box and also not examined any witness, who witnessed the
incident of boy himself riding the two wheeler.
12. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court
taking note of these material on record, particularly no defence
evidence has been led and also in 313 statement of the
accused, nothing is stated with regard to the defence which has
been taken by the prosecution. All these factors has been
appreciated by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court also
taken note of the fact that the only defence raised by the
accused is that deceased Tarun himself ridden TVS Excel and
the said defence is sufficient to support the case. When such
being the case, the First Appellate Court taken note of the fact
that driver of the car went and hit Tarun, who was sitting on
NC: 2025:KHC:3346
the TVS Excel and though he took the contention that Tarun
himself drove the two wheeler, but not examined any
independent witness to prove the same. Having reassessed the
material on record, no perverse finding is given by the Trial
Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Hence, question of
interference by exercising revisional jurisdiction does not arise.
The scope of revision is very limited and only if there is in
perversity in the finding of the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court, then the Court can look into the legality and
correctness of the order.
13. Having considered the material on record, I do not
find any infirmity in the order. Hence, question of interfering
with the order does not arise with regard to the conviction is
concerned. However, taking note of the conviction and
sentence, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 279 and also 304(A) of IPC. When the
ingredients of Section 279 of IPC merges with Section 304(A)
of IPC, question of conviction does not arise under Section 279
IPC. However, taking note of the conviction and sentence and
imposition of fine of Rs.10,000/- and ordered to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year, since it is an accident,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3346
question of imposing rigorous imprisonment does not arise.
Having taken note of the fact that the petitioner is aged about
35 years as on the date of the accident and accident has taken
place in 2017 and the fact that boy was sitting on TVS Excel is
not in dispute, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence from
one year to six months. The Apex Court also in catena of
judgment has reduced the sentence from one year to six
months in a case of 304(A) of IPC, if the gravity of the offence
is not severe and the same would meet the ends of justice.
Hence it requires interference.
Point No.(ii)
14. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The conviction and sentence for the offence
punishable under Section 279 of IPC is set
aside and conviction in respect of Section
304(A) of IPC is upheld. However, the sentence
is modified as simple imprisonment for six
months, instead of rigorous imprisonment for
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3346
one year. If any fine amount is imposed the
same is not altered.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
