Karnataka High Court
G Nagaraja S/O Siddana Gowdru, vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 11 December, 2018
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRL.R.P.NO.2032 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
G.NAGARAJA S/O.SIDDANA GOWDRU,
OCC : DRIVER, AGE : 35 YEARS,
R/O.OLD VILLAGE NEAR URAMMA TEMPLE,
HALYA-VILLAGE, KUDLIGI-TQ,
BELLARY-DISTRICT.
.......PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MANJUNATH G.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND :
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
TRAFFIC POLICE STATION,
HOSPET, BELLARY-DISTRICT,
REP.BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
2
PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK COURT-III, HOSPET, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CRL.A.NO.74 OF 2010 DATED 18.01.2011
THEREBY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE PASSED BY THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HOSPET IN C.C.NO.1601 OF 2009 DATED 20.09.2010,
WHEREBY THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 338,
304A OF IPC READ WITH SECTIONS 183, 184, 187 AND 192 OF
IMV ACT FOR PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AND FINE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed questioning the correctness and legality of the findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein, the Court of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet by judgment and order dated 20.09.2010 in C.C.No.1601 of 2009, convicted the accused/ petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A of IPC and under Sections 183, 184, 187, 192A of IMV Act and the Court of the Fast Track Court-III at Hospet by judgment dated 18.01.2011 in Criminal Appeal 3 No.74 of 2010, partly allowed the said appeal and modified the sentence imposed against the accused for the offence under Section 304A of IPC from one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and rest of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court was confirmed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 17.03.2009 at about 10.15 p.m. CW-3 along with CW-6 to CW-32 sons of CW-12 and 13 and daughter of CW-16, the baby and small child of 5 years of CW-20 and other villagers of Halya were proceeding to Huligi in Tractor bearing registration No.KA- 35/1401 attached with trolley bearing No.KA-35/T- 2466, which was being driven by the accused and near Kanvi Veerabhadreswar Temple, the accused drove the said tractor in a high speed where the 4 road was slightly downwards and when the accused suddenly turned the tractor to the right side in order to go towards Hospet, due to that, tractor turned turtle and passengers fell down and sustained injuries. One of the injured by name Anjinappa succumbed to the injuries in the hospital on 18.03.2009 at about 2.10 a.m. CW-6 to CW-9 and one Hemanth sustained grievous injuries and CW-10 to CW-21 sustained simple injuries and thereby accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC and under Sections 183, 184, 187, 192A of IMV Act.
3. I have heard the learned counsel Sri.Manjunath G.Patil appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that both the Courts have failed to properly appreciate the evidence and material on record and 5 came to an erroneous conclusion thereby convicting the accused, though the material on record discloses that, the accident occurred on account of mechanical defect and not due to rash and negligent act of the accused. It is submitted that the accused was driving the vehicle slowly, however there were ditches on the road as admitted by the prosecution witnesses and on account of that the hook between the tractor and trailer came out which has resulted in the accident. Hence, he submitted that accident has not occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the accused and therefore impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are not sustainable and accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition.
5. On the other hand the learned HCGP contended that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are based on the evidence of the eyewitnesses, which clearly 6 goes to show that, the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and there is nothing to show that the accident occurred on account of any mechanical defect and hence, he submitted that the findings of the Courts below holding the accused guilty need not be interfered with and accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petition.
6. It is not disputed that the accused was the driver of the tractor in question which was attached with the trailer. The accused was carrying as many as 28 persons in the said vehicle from Halya village to Huligi. On 17.03.2009 at about 10.15 pm according to the prosecution the accused was driving the tractor in a high speed and near Kanavi Veerabhadreswara Temple he took a sudden turn to right side in order to go towards Hospet, tractor capsized and the trailer fell down and the persons 7 travelling sustained injuries. One of the injured by name Anjinappa died in the Hospital.
7. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court has considered the oral and documentary evidence on record to arrive at a conclusion that the accused drove the tractor in question in a rash and negligent manner. PWs-2 and 4 who are the two eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution have supported the prosecution case. Both of them have stated that the accused was driving the tractor in a high speed and at about 10.15 p.m. near Kanavi Veerabhadreswara Temple tractor capsized. PW-2 has stated that 22 to 25 persons were traveling in the said vehicle. PW-4 has corroborated the evidence of PW-2. It is also relevant to see that, PW-4 has stated in his evidence that, even though the inmates of the vehicle requested the accused to stop the vehicle, he did not stop and he drove the tractor in a high speed. 8
8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accident occurred on account of mechanical defect. To appreciate the said contention, it is relevant to examine Ex.P-35 i.e., the Motor Vehicles Accident Report issued by PW-6. In the said report, it is opined that, the accident was not due to any mechanical defect. The evidence of PW-6 also does not indicate that the accident occurred on account of any such defect. Hence, it cannot be said that the accident occurred on account of any mechanical defect as contended by the learned counsel for petitioner.
9. I see no illegality in the findings recorded by the Courts below. Hence, I pass the following :
ORDER Revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ckk