the accused is hereby sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs. 700/- for the offence punishable U/S
279 of IPC, I/D he shall undergo a S.I for a
period of one month.
3. Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the
3.1 Police Sub-inspector, Rural Police Station,
Ranebennur filed charge sheet against the accused for the
offences under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC and Section
66(1) R/W Section 192 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701
3.2 Based on the complaint, wherein it is alleged
that on 29/01/2011 at about 6:45 PM accused being the
driver of Mahindra goods vehicle bearing No.KA-27/A-4128
along with Puttavva alias Galemma from Ankasapur
towards Udagatti in a rash and negligent manner and
suddenly applied the break in the process of over taking
another vehicle. As a result, an inmate of the vehicle
namely Puttavva fell down from the vehicle on the road
and sustained fatal head injuries and succumbed to the
injuries on the spot.
3.3 Learned trial Magistrate after taking cognizance
recorded the plea of the accused. Accused pleaded not
guilty, therefore trial was held.
3.4 In order to establish the case of the prosecution,
in all 10 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 10 and 11
documentary evidence were placed on record as Ex.P1 to
P11.
3.5 After conclusion of recording of the evidence,
accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701
of Cr.PC was recorded, wherein accused has denied all the
incriminating circumstances but failed to place any
explanation nor defense evidence on record.
3.6 Subsequent to that learned trial Magistrate heard
the arguments of the parties and convicted the accused
and sentence as referred supra. Being aggrieved by same,
accused filed an appeal before the District Court in
Criminal Appeal No.16/2015.
3.7 Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after
securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in
detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on
record, dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed
the order of sentence.
4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is
before this Court.
5. Learned Amicus Curie reiterating the grounds
urged in the revision petition contended that both the
Courts have not properly appreciated the material
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701
evidence on record, wrongly convicted the accused
resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing
the revision petition.
6. She would further contended that defense
raised by the accused in the trial in the form of
suggestions to the prosecution witnesses that Puttavva
alias Galemma was not died on account of the head
injuries is not properly taken into consideration by both
the Courts and thus sought for allowing the revision
petition.
7. Per contra, learned HCGP Sri.Praveena Y.
Devareddiyavara supports the impugned orders.
8. Heard the arguments of both the sides and
perused the material on record meticulously.
9. On such perusal of the material on record, the
following points would arise for consideration of this Court.
1) Wheather the revision petitioner establishes that
the impugned judgments are suffering from legal
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701
infirmity and perversity and thus calls for
interference ?
2) Whether the sentence need modification?
3) What order?
10. In the case on hand, accused being the driver
of the offending vehicle bearing No.KA-27/A-4128 and
Puttavva being inmate of the vehicle is not in dispute.
Accident is also not in dispute and Puttavva falling down
from the vehicle and sustaing injuries is also not in
dispute.
11. Postmortem report makes it clear that death is
on account of the head injuries sustained in the road
traffic accident.
12. Defence of the accused that Puttavva did not
die on account of the head injury is dealt in detail by the
learned trial Judge in paragraph No.14 of the judgment
which is culled out hereunder for ready reference.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701
14. It is also to be noted that the accused has put
forth a specific and positive defence that the cause of
the death of the deceased was not his rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle but it was due
to some other reason. When this has been his specific
defence then the same has to be proved by him with
cogent rebuttal evidence and if the same could not be
proved by him even when an opportunity was accorded
while recording his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C then it is
to be held that the defence put forth him him is false,
i.e., what has been well settled by the Hon'able High
Court in an earlier decision reported in Ishwar
Sadeppa Nandennavar v/s State of Karnataka
represented by its State P.P Bangalore in ILR
2004 Kar. 1459. The Hon'able High Court while
dealing with similar case has clearly held as under :
IPC Secs. 279,337,338, 304-A-- Rash and
negligent driving endangering life and personal
safety of others-causing grievous hurt- causing
death by negligence applicability of doctrine of
Res-Ipsa Loquitor-Held-the prosecution evidence
especially that of the complainant driver, the facts
and narrated in the complainant are even
substantiated through the evidence of other
injured passengers of the bus. It is prima facie
apparent-the tempo vehicle while came from
opposite direction by overtaking another truck
and dashed against the bus resulting in death of
eleven passengers and serious injuries to 17
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701
others. As against this prima facie material
absolutely no explanation has been offered by the
accused. That the courts have rightly invoked the
doctrine of Res-Ipsa Loquitur.
The above principles are once again reiterated in a
subsequent decision of the Hon'able Supreme Court in
Ravi Kapur v/s State of Rajastan in 2012 Crl.L.J 4403
which is relied upon by the learned APP. The principles
laid down in both these decisions will have to be
extended to the facts on hand for the simple reason that
even in the present case, the injuries caused to PW1
and the resultant death of the deceased are proved to
be the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused
which has been unequivocally spoken to by Pws. 1, 2, 5
to 7 who have witnessed the accident and they are also
proved to be the probable and natural witnesses since
their presence at the scene of the offence is not
specifically denied by the defence side.. Under such
circumstances their testimony which regard to the cause
of the accident will have to be certainly relied upon since
the negligence and rashness are the essential elements
U/S 304-A of IPC as has been well settled in a catena of
decisions and one such decision is reported in
Rathnashalvan v/s State of Karnataka in 2007(2) Crimes
51 (SC) wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that
Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise
reasonable and proper care and in the instant case the
rashness and negligent act of the accused is apparent
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701
from the evidence adduced before the court by the
prosecution. Therefore, considering all these attending
facts and circumstances of the case, it can squarely be
held that the accused has committed the offence
punishable U/S 279 of IPC which has led to the resultant
end of one innocent life and injuries to the other. Hence,
all these three points will have to be answered in favour
of the prosecution in the affirmative."
13. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court did
take into consideration the grounds of the appeal while
upholding the order of conviction. First Appellate Court did
consider the testimony of PW7 who is an eye witness to
the incident and stranger to the accused who did not
nurture any previous enmity or animosity against the
accused. Date of accident is on 29/01/2011 and time of
accident is 6:45 PM.
14. Therefore, false implication of the accused in
the incident is impermissible so also presence of PW7 at
the time of accident cannot be ruled out who is a chance
witness to the case on record.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701
15. Taking note of these aspects of the matter,
having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction
as is held in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh
Chander and another1, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the conviction order recorded by both Courts
is just and proper. More so, in the absence of any version
being placed on record by the accused and not placing any
defence evidence.
16. Learned trial Judge has granted 6 months
imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A of IPC
which requires no further interference by this Court in view
of the principles of law enunciated in the case of State of
Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi. In view of the foregoing
discussion, points No. 1 and 2 are answered in the
negative
Regarding point No.3
17. In view of the finding of this Court on Point
Nos.1 and 2 as above, following order is passed:
(2012) 9 SCC 460
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701
ORDER
(i) Revision Petition is meritless and therefore
dismissed.
(ii) Time is granted for the accused-revision
petitioner to surrender before the trial Court till
15.04.2025. Failing which the trial Court shall secure
his presence in accordance with law and send him to
prison.
(iii) Services rendered by learned Amicus Curie is
placed on record with appreciation.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
HMB
CT:PA
