Karnataka High Court
Ravi vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2024
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
CRL.RP.200033/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRL.R.P.NO.200033 OF 2019
BETWEEN
RAVI S/O BASU LAMANI
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O BYAKOD, NOW RESIDING,
AT KARIHAL TANDA, TQ. B. BAGEWADI,
DIST. BIJAPUR-586203.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI I. S. CHIMMALAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY B. BAGEWADI P.S,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS,
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI-585107.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRL.APPEAL NO.64/2017
ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
2
CRL.RP.200033/2019
JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR AND IN C.C.NO.308/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, BASAVAN
BAGEWADI ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR IN CRL.APPEAL
NO.64/2017 DATED 31.12.2018 AND THE ORDER OF CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC, B.BAGEWADI IN
C.C.NO.308/2010 DATED 05.07.2017 AND SET THE PETITIONER
AT LIBERTY.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
22.01.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The revision petitioner/accused has filed this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi in C.C.No.308/2010 and confirmed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapur in Criminal Appeal No.64/2017, for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, (for short 'IPC'), Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M. V. Act') and Section 3 read with Section 182 of the M. V. Act.
3CRL.RP.200033/2019
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the Trial Court.
3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as under:
That on 04.09.2009 at about 4.30 p.m. the accused being the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 28/R-8413 rode it in a rash and negligent manner from Huvin Hipparagi towards Byakod on a public road without possessing a valid and effective driving lience endangering the human life and knocked the deceased Yamanawwa from backside resulting in she suffering fatal injuries. She was immediately shifted to hospital and accused fled from the spot and even did not bother to attend the injured. In this regard, a complaint came to be lodged. It is further asserted that subsequently the injured succumbed because of the injuries in the hospital and then, the Investigating Officer 4 CRL.RP.200033/2019 submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
4. After submission of the charge sheet, as there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences. The summons was issued to the accused and he appeared through his counsel and was enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Then the plea was recorded and accused denied the same.
5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 9 witnesses and also placed reliance on nine documents marked at Exs.P1 to P9. During the course of the cross-examination, Exs.D1 to D4 were got marked.
6. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case of 5 CRL.RP.200033/2019 the prosecution. The case of the accused is of total denial and he did not choose to lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence.
7. Having heard the arguments and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC, Section 134 read with Section 187 of the M. V. Act and Section 3 read with Section 182 of the M. V. Act. He imposed the sentence of fine for the offence under Section 279 of IPC, Section 134 read with Section 187 of the M. V. Act and Section 3 read with Section 182 of the M. V. Act. However, for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.1,000/-.
8. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has approached the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge in Criminal 6 CRL.RP.200033/2019 Appeal No.64/2017. The learned Sessions Judge after re- appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. Against these concurrent findings, the accused is before this Court by way of this revision.
9. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the records.
10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the accused has disputed the involvement of the motorcycle in the accident and the evidence on record discloses that the deceased had fallen from a tractor while getting down, which has resulted in her death. He would further assert that in order to have a compensation, the vehicle in question was fixed and hence, he would contend that both the Courts below failed to 7 CRL.RP.200033/2019 appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in a proper perspective. As such, he would seek for allowing the revision by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by both the Courts below by acquitting the accused.
11. Per contra, the learned High Court Government pleader would support the order passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. He would contend that there is material evidence and the eyewitnesses have specifically identified the accused and narrated the incident and minor contradictions though appeared, they do not go to the root of the case so as to discard the case of the prosecution. He would further contend that the imprisonment imposed is also a reasonable one and hence, he would submit that the impugned judgments do not call for any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition. 8 CRL.RP.200033/2019
12. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, now the following point would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court are perverse, arbitrary and erroneous so as to call for any interference by this Court?"
13. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that on 04.09.2009 at about 4.30 p.m. the accused being the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-28/R-8413 rode it from Huvin-Hipparagi towards Byakod on a public road in a rash and negligent manner and knocked the deceased Yamanawwa causing fatal injuries, who succumbed in the hospital two days later on and the accused having caused the accident fled away from the spot. It is also asserted by the prosecution that the accused did not possess valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident.
9CRL.RP.200033/2019
14. The complainant was examined as PW.1. In his evidence, he has reiterated the complaint allegations and he has fully supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination of PW.1, certain portions of the complaint were got marked as Exs.D1 to D3. But, on perusal of these exhibits marked at Exs.D1 to D3, they are not fatal to the case of the prosecution as it is in respect of from which end the accused coming and knocking from front side or backside. All along a specific defence was set up by accused that the complainant, deceased and others had been to attend the funeral ceremony in a tractor and while getting down from the tractor, the deceased fell down and suffered fatal injuries. This suggestion came to be denied by PW.1. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1 so as to discard the case of the prosecution regarding the accused riding the motorcycle and hitting the deceased.
15. PW.2 is the witness to spot mahazar and he has deposed regarding drawing of spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. 10 CRL.RP.200033/2019
16. PW.3 is one more eyewitness, but, he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
17. PW.4 is the witness to the vehicle seizure mahazar and he has also turned hostile for seizure of the vehicle under Ex.P5.
18. PW.5 - Sanganbasamma, PW.6 - Shivamma W/o. Shantagouda Hadalageri and PW.7 - Shivamma W/o. Shankaragouda Hadalageri are eyewitnesses and they have also fully supported the case of the prosecution. They have deposed regarding accused riding the motorcycle and knocking the deceased from backside. In their evidence also a suggestion was made that the deceased fell down while getting down from the tractor, but, all the witnesses specifically denied the said suggestion. Interestingly, during the course of recording the evidence of PWs.5 to 7, the accused was absent, but, the identity of the accused was not disputed. When the identity of the accused was not disputed, now the defence counsel cannot take up a defence 11 CRL.RP.200033/2019 regarding identity of the accused by disputing the accident itself.
19. PW.9 is the ASI and he has deposed regarding the complainant lodging the complaint in the hospital. On perusal of the complaint marked at Ex.P1, it is evident that it was lodged in the hospital at about 7.00 p.m. The accident has occurred even at 4.30 p.m. and by 7.00 p.m. the complaint came be to be lodged in the hospital. There is no reason for falsely implicating the vehicle in question as asserted by the defence. Even in the complaint, the vehicle number is specifically asserted and name of the accused is also referred. Hence, it is evident that immediately the complainant has initiated an action in the police station.
20. PW.10 is another eyewitness and he has also supported the case of the prosecution. PW.11 and PW.12 are the Investigating Officers. Though these witnesses have been cross-examined at length, nothing was elicited so as to impeach their evidence.
12CRL.RP.200033/2019
21. It is important to note here that all along the accused has set up a defence that the deceased fell down from the tractor while getting down and succumbed to the injuries. The death of Yamanawwa is undisputed. But, the accused has disputed his involvement and also involvement of his motorcycle. The records disclose that the motorcycle was seized by the police and it was shifted to the police station by the complainant himself after the accident. Interestingly, though during cross-examination of the eyewitnesses a suggestion was made regarding the deceased falling from the tractor and suffering fatal injuries, but, similar suggestions were not put to the Investigating Officers. The cross-examination of the Investigating Officers reveals that there was only formal denial of the investigation and no defence was set up that the deceased died due to fall from the tractor and the vehicle in question was falsely implicated. This version clearly establishes that the accused has set up a formal false defence and nothing else. Though there are certain variances in the evidence of the witnesses, 13 CRL.RP.200033/2019 they do not go to the root of the case so as to discard the entire case of the prosecution. All the witnesses specifically identified the accused and he being the rider of the motorcycle in question. No animosity is forthcoming.
22. It is also the specific allegation by the prosecution that the accused was not possessing valid and effective driving licence. If at all the complainant and other witnesses intended to fix a different vehicle in order to get the compensation, they could have fixed a proper vehicle having valid and effective driving licence with insurance. But, that is not the case here and the complaint was lodged immediately within two and half hours, which clearly discloses that there was no scope for manipulation. The discrepancies highlighted do not go to the root and it is not the case of the accused that he has never rode the motorcycle. He has not produced his driving licence and it is not his case that he has reported the matter to the nearest police station or attempted to shift the injured to the 14 CRL.RP.200033/2019 hospital. The conduct of the accused in taking a defence of non involvement in the accident, itself specify his mentality.
23. Considering these facts and circumstances, it is evident that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts that he rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and knocked the deceased resulting in the accident. The prosecution by leading cogent evidence has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. No illegality or perversity is found in the judgment of conviction so as to call for interference.
24. The learned Magistrate has imposed sentence of fine for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the M. V. Act and Section 3 read with Section 182 of the M. V. Act. Considering imposition of fine, question of interference in the said sentence portion does not arise at all.
15CRL.RP.200033/2019
25. The accused was convicted for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC by imposing sentence for a period of one year with fine of Rs.1,000/-. The offence under Section 304-A of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend upto two years, or with fine, or with both. The maximum sentence prescribed is two years and no limit is imposed for fine. The learned Magistrate has imposed imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.1,000/-.
26. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2023) 10 SCC 470 in the case of Nand Lal and Others vs. The State of Chhattisgarh. But, the facts and circumstances of the said case are entirely different and in the said judgment, some of the witnesses including PW.1 were not the eyewitnesses. In the instant case, all the eyewitnesses except PWs.3 and 4, have supported the case of the prosecution. The facts and circumstances being entirely different, the principles enunciated in the above cited 16 CRL.RP.200033/2019 decision do not come to the aid of the accused in any way. Further, this is pertaining to offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC coupled with the provisions of the M. V. Act.
27. Apart from that, the accused during his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. did not give any explanation as per his defence set up and his statement is total formal denial. He did not reiterate his defence. Hence, there is material evidence to show that the accused has committed the alleged offences.
28. The accused/petitioner is aged about 27 years. His profession itself is a driver and considering the age of the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the imprisonment for a period of one year appears to be harsh. However, the accused has caused the death of a pedestrian by knocking the deceased by a motorcycle and he is required to be punished. Considering these aspects, in my considered that it is just and proper to sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, but, by enhancing 17 CRL.RP.200033/2019 the fine amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.15,000/-, which would serve the purpose.
29. Considering these aspects, the revision petition needs to be allowed in part insofar as it relates to sentence portion pertaining to offence under Section 304-A of IPC is concerned. Hence, the point under consideration is partly answered in the affirmative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
a) The revision petition is allowed in part insofar as it relates to sentence imposed by both the Courts below for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.
b) The impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi in C.C.No.308/2010 and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.64/2017 by 18 CRL.RP.200033/2019 the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapur, stands confirmed.
c) The sentence imposed for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the M. V. Act and Section 3 read with Section 182 of the M. V. Act by Courts below also stand confirmed.
d) However, the sentence for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC is modified and the accused/petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six month with fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default, he is required to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.
e) The bail bonds stand cancelled.19
CRL.RP.200033/2019
f) Registry is directed to send back the records to the Trial Court along with copy of this judgment with a direction to the learned Magistrate to secure the presence of the accused/petitioner for serving the sentence and for collection of additional fine.
Sd/-
JUDGE SRT