Karnataka High Court
Dinesh S/O Damu Rathod vs The State Trhough Traffic Police ... on 15 November, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRL.RP.No.200007/2015
BETWEEN:
DINESH,
S/O DAMU RATHOD,
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC : PAINTING WORK,
R/O : KEB QUARTERS FILTERBED,
GULBARGA-585102. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE TRHOUGH
TRAFFIC POLICE STATION,
GULBARGA-585102. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
OF CR.P.C PRAYING THIS COURT TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL
REVISION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 22.12.2014 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT GULBARGA IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO: 92/2012 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
& ORDER DT: 17.08.2012 PASSED BY PRL. CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC GULBARGA, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner on 18.04.2010 at about 4.00 p.m., drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the pedestrian, as a result the pedestrian succumbed to the injuries and the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act ('MV Act' for short) were invoked. The accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and the prosecution in order to prove the charges levelled against him, relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6 and Exs.P.1 to 7. The accused did not lead any evidence. The Trial Court after appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused for all the charges.
3
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, Crl.A.No.94/2012 is filed. The Appellate Court set aside the sentence and fine imposed in respect of the offences under Sections 181 and 196 of MV Act and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. Hence, the present petition is filed before this Court.
4. The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that once the offence under Section 304A of IPC is invoked, the Trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused for the offence under Section 279 of IPC. The learned counsel would contend that the Trial Court has erred in jumping to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the petitioner and the very finding of the Trial Court is erroneous and hence it requires interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would contend that the Trial Court has taken note of both oral and documentary 4 evidence placed on record and particularly considering the evidence of P.Ws.1, 5 and 6 rightly comes to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner and there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and also on perusal of the grounds urged in the revision petition, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and whether it requires interference by exercising the powers under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C?
7. Having considered the grounds urged in the petition as well as the material available on record, the Trial Court mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 5 5 and 6 and rightly comes to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner herein and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and under Sections 181 and 196 of the MV Act. The Appellate Court reversed the conviction and sentence in respect of Sections 181 and 196 of the MV Act, but confirmed the judgment for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. Once the higher punishment regarding negligence is invoked for the offence under Section 304A of IPC, the Trial Court ought to have taken note of the offence under Section 279 of IPC, which merges with Section 304A of IPC. Hence, it requires interference of this Court to exercise the revisional powers to modify the judgment of the Trial Court and also the Appellate Court in setting aside the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. However, I do not find any merit in the revision petition to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court imposing sentence of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. The 6 Appellate Court has taken note of the sentence and also the circumstances under which the accident occured. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court and the sentence in respect of Section 304A of IPC.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The revision petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC is hereby set aside. The conviction and sentence passed for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD