Karnataka High Court
Nagaraju vs State Of Karantaka on 8 February, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1346/2010
BETWEEN:
Nagaraju
S/o Siddappa
Aged about 46 years
Driver of KSRTC Bus
Bearing Registration
No.KA-17/F-800
Chitradurga. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri K R Ramesh, HCGP)
AND:
State of Karnataka
By Sira Police
By State Public Prosecutor. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri K Nageshwarappa, Adv.)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C praying to set aside the
impugned judgment dated 07.08.2010 passed by the P.O.,
F.T.C.-IV, Tumkur in Crl.A.No.47/2009 confirming the
judgment dated 13.04.2009 passed by the C.J., (Jr. Dn.) and
2
JMFC, Sira in C.C.No.866/2007 and thereby allow this
Crl.R.P. acquitting the petitioner from the offence leveled
against him.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Hearing
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This revision petition is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 13.04.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Sira, in C.C. No.866/2007 and the judgment and order dated 7.08.2009 passed by the Fast Track Court-1, Tumkur, in Crl. Appeal No.47/2009. By the judgment and order, the trial Court convicted the revision petitioner-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and imposed the fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-accused preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court, whereby the first appellate Court, after re-appreciating the materials, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order 3 of conviction passed by the trial Court. Hence, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and orders of the Courts below, the revision petitioner is before this Court.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 01.09.2007, at about 5.00 a.m., near Emmerahalli gate in front school, on N.H.4, the accused being the driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-17-F-800 drove the same in rash and negligent manner from Tumkur towards Hiriyur and dashed to Iron gallery of N.H.4. As a result, C.Ws.2 to 5 and 11 sustained the grievous injuries, C.Ws.1, 6 to 10 and 12 to 14 sustained the simple injuries and thereby, committed the offences.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 18 witnesses and produced 19 documents. On the side of the defence, no witness is examined nor any document is produced.
4
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-accused and the learned HCGP for the respondent State.
5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-accused during the course of the arguments made submission that looking to the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses so also the documents produced in the case, there is no consistency in the said evidence and they are contradictory to each other. It is also submission of the learned Counsel that the said accident is not because of rash and negligent driving by the revision petitioner-accused, but it is because of the circumstances beyond his control and he has stated said contention by way of defence. The Courts below have not correctly read the oral and documentary evidence. The wrong reading of the evidence lead the trial Court to come to the wrong conclusion in holding that the revision petitioner- accused has committed the said offence. Hence, the judgment of the trial Court is not correct and it is also not in 5 accordance with the materials placed on record. Even the first appellate Court while dismissing the appeal has not independently referred to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and simply endorsed its views to that of the trial Court. Hence, he submitted that both the judgments are not sustainable in law.
Alternatively, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-accused made submission that if this Court were to come to the conclusion that there is no merit in this revision petition, so far as the sentence aspect is concerned, he has relied upon the order dated 24.7.2013 passed by this Court in Crl.R.P. No.655/2010 and made submission that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in RAJBIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA reported in AIR 1985 SC 1278, an observation is to be made by this Court that imposition of fine amount for the said offences will not affect the service condition of the petitioner.
6
6. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State made submission that so far as the factual aspects are concerned, there are concurrent findings of the Courts below. All the witnesses have deposed about the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the revision petitioner-accused. No illegality has been committed by the Courts below. There is no merit in the revision petition and the same is to be dismissed.
So far as the observation made on the sentence aspect, the learned HCGP submitted that he will leave the matter to the Court to pass any appropriate order.
7. I have perused the grounds urged in the revision petition and the judgment and orders passed by the Courts below.
8. Looking to the judgment of the trial Court, it has chronologically and para-wise referred to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in detail. It has also referred to the 7 documents produced by the prosecution in the case and referring to these materials, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution is able to prove the offences beyond all reasonable doubt that it is because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the revision petitioner- accused. It is also observed that the materials placed by the prosecution is consistent. Even looking to the report of the IMV inspector, it goes to show that there is no mechanical defect in the vehicle and as such, it is observed by the trial Court. The evidence placed on record clearly establishes the case of prosecution as against the revision petitioner- accused. I have also perused the judgment of the first appellate Court. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the first appellate Court simply endorsed its view to that of the trial Court without making discussion about the oral and documentary evidence of the parties cannot be accepted in view of the observations made in the judgment itself. The first appellate Court has referred to the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses in detail 8 and after re-appreciating the matter, came to the conclusion that there is no illegality in the judgment of the Courts below. It is also observed by the first appellate Court in para 20 of the judgment that when the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he had not given any explanation as to how the accident took place. The accused when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., a specific question was asked as to whether he wanted to say anything. He could have explained, according to him, how the accident took place which he has not done as observed by the first appellate Court. In the absence of these materials and when there are concurrent findings of the Courts below, appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence in this case, cannot be re-appreciated unless it is shown that there is grave illegality committed by the Courts below.
Looking to the materials placed on record, I do not find any illegality committed either by the trial Court or by the first appellate Court in passing the judgment and orders. 9 There is no merit in the revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
9. With reference to the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-accused, the sentence imposed also does not call for interference with by this Court as it is proportionate and reasonable. However, it is made clear that the sentence imposed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the first appellate Court will not affect the service condition of the petitioner in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court which is followed by this Court in the said revision petition.
The revision petitioner is directed to pay the fine amount within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-