Karnataka High Court
Mr Abdul Muneer vs The State Through The Circle Inspector ... on 16 March, 2011
Author: K.Govindarajulu
Bench: K.Govindarajulu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE | DATED THIS THE 16" DAY OF MARCH 2011 .°_ BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K GOVINDARAJULE). © CRL.R.P. NO.1198 OF 2008°.- BETWEEN; MR ABDUL MUNNER, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O ALIYABBA, R/AT VANTIKATTE, MARPADY. MALA VILLAGE, MOODBIDRI, DAKSHINA ee KANNADA DISTRICR. PETITIONER (BY SRI P P HEGDE, ADV). AND: | THE STATE -- THROUGH THE -- CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF > POLICE, KARKALA CIRCLE. . KARKALA, REPRESENTEL: BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH | 'COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE, ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI G.M SRINIVASA REDDY, HCGP.) _ THIS PETIYION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 "CRP.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVIC TION DATED 08.03.2006 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (R.DN.) AND JMFC., KARKALA IN C.C.NO.652/05 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.10.2008 PASSED BY THE DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI IN CRL.A.NO.34/06. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THES DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: . ORDER
The accused in CC No.652/2005 on the file of the. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMPC, Karkala is the. revision. petitioner.
2. The charge against the ac cused herein is "that he being the driver of a lorry beating Regn. No KA- 19/AC:- 6969 . has driven the bus rashly, peglgenthy and dashed against Maruthi Omni (hereizaiter referred to as Van for short). [It resulted in deaih, injuries to tne minaies" of Van. Thereby, the accused is changed for the offence punishable under section 304A IPC among other wolfe 'ices,
3. The anid Hngance has secured the presence of the. accused, prosecution is permitted to lead evidence, recorded the evidence of PWs. 1 to 12. exhibits P-1 to P-15 are marked, - 'fhe learned Magistrate has convicted the i ae eee ed | for the offences complained of by the State. | "The accused has preferred CRLA.No. 34/2006 on the fle of the learned District Judge, Udupi. By an order Sct dated 3.10.2008, the appellate judge has dismissed the appeal.
9. The learned advocate for the accused subsiatitiates. his chent's case with the following submissions:
() Firstly, the case of the State cannui be. accepted as there is no evidence to 'prove tht the accused was driving the vehicle in question, Secondly, the accused has driver 'the vehicle rashly, negigently and dashed against Van is not proved, - .
Further contend that the object of recording of the statement of the accused under Section.313 Cr.PC is to make known the allegations against the accused. So, that it will provide an opportunity to 'the accused to say his reply. But, in the facts of the case, statement is recorded in a half page narration. The case of the prosecution as the one required under Section.313 Cr.PC is not put to the accused. So, the method adopted by the Ag"
learned Magistrate is incorrect. It being not appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge. th ere > is a failure of justice.
(4) Place reliance on the ruling. of this Court in Keshava Murthy Vs. State by-A Arsikere Rural P Police,"
reported in ILR 200 | KAR 5657, wherein. this court has held the inferences in regard to rashness and negligent chiving cannot be drawn and that the case of. the pros sectition ii 'AS to be put to the accused by cording separate questions. Similar is the n ratio ii the other case relied in Naga @ Nagaraja : and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in ILR 2002 KAR 5129. . Similar is the ratio in the other case relied in the case of Hyderkhan Vs. State of Karnataka orted in ILR 2006 KAR 2574.
5. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand submit that the approach of the learned Magistrate is preper. In the facts of the case, the witnesses PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 are the infured witnesses, They were the inmates of the Van. Nothing is elicited during the cross examination to disbelieve their presence in the van. Not only they are ~ injured witnesses, but also the driver of the van suceumbed:
to the injuries in the road traffic accident. Further conterids that no prejudice would be caused to thé accused in the ~ facts of the case as there is no chailenge to recording of the statement of the accused under Sectien.@13 Cr.PC. Sec, the approach of the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge is correct. So, pray for dismissal of the revision.
6. In the lignt ef ihe above, the. pcints that arise for consideration of this révision are as wader:
(1) Whether the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate.in recording statement under. Section. 313 Cr.PC has caused prejudice.? | _ (2; Whether the prosecution proves the charges "levelled against the accused.
7... The learned advocate has placed reliance on the rulings of this Court to the effect that statement under _ Section.313 Cr.PC cannot be recorded in a sterio fashion. It .. is trus, but the facts of each case, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that if there is any prejudice % faused to the accused, the accused should have come out with such prejudice specifically. Except contending. that ~ there is violation of the ratio, what is the impact on him or. Judge is not found in the submission. Se, ithe submission. ~ that the mandate of this court is riot followed while recording the statement of the accused under Section.313 €r.PC urged by the learned advocate for the' accused is.without any merit. So, il is rejected.
9. In the faets-af the. case evidence is adduced inchuding by examining: the injured witnesses. PW-1 in the course of his evidence States ihat he is aware of the facts of the case. Oni. 26.6.2908, ne was in the Van after the marriage function. The van belong to Lakshminarayana. 1 ne said Lakshmiriarayana was driving the van. In the said Van, oWs:2 & 4 are the other occupants. at about 4.40 pm, when the vai was moving from Udupi towards Someshwara, when ; che vehicle was near Chandukudu area, then . Lakshanitiarayana was driving the van on the left side of the road, at that time, the driver of the bus in question which a was driven by the accused herein has dashed against the van. Vhe evidence of the witness is:
ata eertPe! ciapsarinibest aactrte:
AES, "OED ARG ae ORAL CS APOE the Investigating Officer has collected the wound certificate | of PW-] as per Ex.P6 and found that PW-1 is injured and he having supported the case of the prosecution, he having supported the negligent driving of the driver, has compared this evidence with the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 4 who are examined as eye-witnésses. ~Pheir version also corroborate with the respective. wound "cerlificaies: of PWs.2, 3, and 4 collected by ihe Investigating Officer as per Ex.P-7, P-8 and P-9, In addition: to . it, the Post Mortem report of Lakshmirarayena is also marked. Nothing is elicited as to why the presence of PWs.1 to 4 as the one narrated by them has to be disbetieved. In the facts of this case, section 6 of : _ the Evidence Act is also attracted. PW-1 states after . ationding the Marriage party, he was coming in the van of . . Lakshminarayana as a passenger, Lakshminarayana was ariving the car. Lakshminarayana died on account of the accident. The driver of the bus which drove the bus in the opposite direction has dashed against the van and it res ited in the road traffic accident. So, the presence of PW is in the normal course of the conduct of a human being is found in the facts of the case. The evidence cf Pwo is further corroborated in the evidence of PWs.2 to 4. So, the oust holds that the finding recorded by the 1 sarned. Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Session iS Judge in convicting the accused is in order anda do. not require iierference by this court. The | 'subitn, unisaion of advocate for accused are rejected. Submnissio ~ of High Court 'Government Pleader are accepted, Revision is without any merit. Dismissed.