Karnataka High Court
Puttaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.476 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
PUTTARAJU
S/O. LATE THAMMANNA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.75/21, 17TH MAIN
8TH CROSS, J. C. NAGAR
KURUBARAHALLI
BANGALORE.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAMESHA D, ADV., FOR ANN ASSOCIATES)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY BYATARAYANAPURA
TRAFFIC POLICE STATION
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NAZRULLA KHAN, H.C.G.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397(1) READ WITH SECTION 401(1) OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22-3-2011
PASSED BY THE P.O, FTC-X, BANGALORE CITY IN CRL.A.
NO.373/2010 AND ORDER DATED 4-5-2010 PASSED BY THE
MMTC-II, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO. 2346/2006.
2
THIS CRL.RP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, PRADEEP
D. WAINGANKAR J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence of the petitioner by an order dated 4-5-2010 in C.C. No.2346/2006 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-II, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 297, 337 and 304A of I.P.C. which has been confirmed in Crl.Appeal No.373/2010 on the file of Fast Track Court-X by an order dated 22-3-2011.
2. The petitioner was the accused before the Magistrate in C.C. No.2346/2006. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused being the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.KA-01 F-7816, while driving the bus from Bangalore towards Mysore on 9-6-2006, at about 8.45 a.m. when the bus reached 3 near the Madhu petrol bunk junction, it dashed against T.V.S. bearing No.KA-05 EG-877 causing grievous injuries to the rider and the pillion rider and thereafter dashed against another person, who was standing by the side of the road and unable to control the speed, the bus dashed against an electric pole. Because of the injuries sustained in the said accident, two persons died while undergoing treatment in the hospital and the lady, who was a pillion rider on the T.V.S. survived. A complaint was lodged against the driver of the bus by P.W.1 as per Ex.P.1 and a case came to be registered against the petitioner/accused-the driver of bus for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of I.P.C. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed. The accused appeared before the Magistrate and pleaded not guilty to all the charges leveled against him under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of I.P.C. The prosecution in order to prove the charges, 4 examined as many as ten witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.13. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appeared against him during the course of evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He did not choose to lead defence evidence. The learned Magistrate upon hearing both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon appreciation of the evidence placed on record, by judgment dated 4- 5-2010 convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of I.P.C. and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively.
3. Criminal Appeal No.373/2010 filed by the petitioner/accused against his conviction and sentence 5 before the Fast Track Court-X at Bangalore came to be dismissed by an order dated 22-3-2011.
4. Questioning the legality and correctness of the orders passed by both the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complainant, who is the son of one of the deceased persons, is not an eye-witness to the incident and the conviction of the accused placing reliance on his evidence is not sustainable in law. He also argued that identity of the accused as the driver of the said bus is not established beyond all reasonable 6 doubt. It is also submitted that the evidence of the witness examined by the prosecution is full of contradictions, which goes to the root of the matter and therefore, sought to set-aside the judgment of conviction and sentence by allowing this revision petition.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand argued that this is a case of res-ipsa- loquitur and that the accident was witnessed by number of eye-witnesses, who have deposed before the Court and based on their evidence, the accused has been rightly convicted. He also submitted that the witnesses have deposed having actually seen the accused as the driver of the bus, who ran away from the spot of the accident and as such, both the Courts below upon appreciation of the evidence have convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment. Hence, 7 learned High Court Government Pleader has sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
8. In view of the rival submission made by learned counsel and on perusal of the entire material placed on record, following points arise for consideration:-
i. Whether the prosecution has been able to establish the identity of the accused as the driver of the bus, who caused the accident?
ii. Whether the prosecution has been able to establish the accident and the death of two persons and injury sustained is due to rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus bearing No. KA-01-F-7816 by the accused?8
9. I have already stated that prosecution in all examined ten witnesses in order to prove the charges. Out of the ten witnesses, P.W.1-Kumar is the son of one of the persons, who died in the accident. He states in his evidence that at the time of accident, he along with his father was standing by the side of the road at the spot of the accident. At about 8.45 a.m., the K.S.R.T.C bus bearing No. KA-01 F-7816 came from Bangalore side to go to Mysore side and dashed against two persons, who were proceedings on T.V.S. and thereafter the bus went ahead to a distance of 20 ft. and dashed against his father, who was standing along with him and thereafter it dashed against the road side electric pole. Thus, P.W.1 has clearly stated the accident occurred on account of negligence of the bus driver. Whether he was really an eye-witness, is to be seen from his cross-examination. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that personally he does not know who among 9 the public informed the police. He also stated in the cross-examination that he came to know about the accident at about 8.30 a.m. and thereafter rushed to the spot at about 8.45 a.m. and saw his father was on spot. Therefore, it is clear from his evidence in the cross- examination that he was not an eye-witness to the said incident, but he came to the spot after coming to know of the accident of his father from others, who were there on the spot. He lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.1 and thereby, a case came to be registered against the driver. As such, it is not proper to place reliance on his evidence as an eye-witness to the accident.
10. P.W.2 is one Shekar, who is examined as an eye witness. His evidence would go to show that at the time of accident, he was proceeding from his house to go to his work and at that time, the K.S.R.T.C. bus in question dashed the T.V.S. moped and later to a 10 pedestrian in the junction and thereby the T.V.S. rider, his wife-pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries, the pedestrian-the father of P.W.1 also sustained injuries. Of course, he has stated that he saw the incident directly after hearing sound, when he turned back. Therefore, there is no doubt, whatsoever that he is an eye-witness to the incident. He has made it very clear that accident occurred on account of fault of the bus driver. He also stated that the bus dashed to an electric pole. Suggestion made to him that he was never called by the police to conduct spot panchanama, has been denied. Thus, P.W.2 an eye-witness, has fully supported the case of the prosecution.
11. P.W.3 is one Shivashankara Gowda. He has also given his evidence in the same manner as that of the P.W.2. Further, he stated that bus driver ran away and he saw him while running away. In the cross- 11 examination, he has stated that at that time, he was waiting for his friend and the bus in question came from Bangalore side to go towards Mysore side and dashed against a T.V.S, followed by a pedestrian and thereafter, to an electric pole.
12. P.W.4 - Gowramma - the pillion rider of the T.V.S, who was seriously injured, but survived. She also states in her evidence that the bus came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against T.V.S, which her husband was riding. The injured husband was shifted to Sahana Hospital and later on to NIMHANS, where he died.
13. P.W.5 - Mahesha is another pancha to spot panchanama. He also supported the case of the prosecution.
12
14. P.W.6 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the bus involved in the accident and opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects.
15. P.W.7 - R.C. Lokesh Kumar is Police Inspector of Byatarayanapura Police Station within whose jurisdiction the accident has occurred. His evidence is that on 9-6-2006, he received information regarding the accident and immediately went to the spot, shifted the bus from the spot and received complaint from P.W.1 as per Ex.P.1, registered a case, conducted spot panchanama, drawn spot sketch and recorded the statement of the witnesses and filed charge-sheet against the driver of the bus.
16. P.W.8 is Dr. Venkataraghava, Assistant Professor of Victoria Hospital, who conducted the post- mortem examination on the dead body of Basavaraj, 13 who was seriously injured in the said accident and issued post-mortem report as per Ex.P.11, wherein it is opined that the death is due to multiple injuries.
17. P.W.9 is Dr. K.V.Sathish, Associate Professor, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of Ponganurappa and issued post-mortem report as per Ex.P.12, wherein he also opined that the death was due to multiple injuries.
18. P.W.10 is Dr. Shivarajaiah, Orthopedic Surgeon, who examined P.W.2-pillion rider in the T.V.S. He noticed two injuries, which were simple in nature and issued Wound Certificate as per Ex.P.13.
19. Ex.P.7 is the spot sketch, which gives a clear idea from where the bus came and where the accident occurred. From the sketch, it appears that the driver could have avoided the accident.
14
20. This is a clear cut case of rash and negligent driving by the driver-accused of the K.S.R.T.C. bus. At the first instance, he dashed against the T.V.S, followed by a pedestrian and thereafter, to a road side electric pole. Not only that, he immediately got down from the bus and ran away without giving information to the police regarding accident. He had an ample opportunity not only to see that rider of the T.V.S. and also to avoid the accident and to control the speed of the bus. Though driver ran away from the spot of the accident, he was seen running by the witnesses and they also identified him before the Court. Thus, the learned Magistrate on proper appreciation of the evidence has convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of I.P.C. and the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the judgment of conviction.
15
21. So far as the sentence imposed by the Magistrate is concerned, it has to be stated that the Magistrate has imposed simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279, and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of I.P.C. Though the sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 304A of I.P.C. is commensurate with the gravity of the crime, the sentence imposed for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. seems to be on the higher side. Therefore, the sentences under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. is concerned, requires to be 16 reduced. The ends of justice will be met, if the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of I.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight days. Hence, I pass the following order: -
The revision petition is partly-allowed. The conviction of the petitioner/accused under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of I.P.C. is hereby confirmed. The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C. in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) for the offence punishable under Section 337 of 17 I.P.C. in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight days. The sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304A of I.P.C. imposed by the Magistrate is hereby confirmed.
Send the records immediately.
Sd/-
JUDGE kvk