Karnataka High Court
Vittal vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2023
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
CRL.RP No. 686 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 686 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
VITTAL S/O CHANDU LAMANI
AGE: 28 YEAR, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: BATAKURKI L. T.,
TQ: RAMADURGA,
DISTRICT: BELGAUM - 587 313.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by
SUJATA SUBHASH
BANGALURU.
PAMMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
DHARWAD
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.11.2015 PASSED BY
THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND S.J., BAGALKOT IN
CRL.A.NO.61/2011 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 05.02.2011 PASSED BY
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOT IN
C.C.NO.325/2010 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR
OFFENCES P/U/Ss. 279,337,338,304(A) OF IPC AND
-2-
CRL.RP No. 686 of 2016
SEC.187 OF M.V.ACT, AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER
HEREIN OF THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.. 279,337,338,304(A)
OF IPC AND SEC.187 OF M.V.ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision is filed by the accused under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.02.2011 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bagalkot ('trial Court' for short), in C.C.No.325/2010, whereby the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC and under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'M.V. Act') by sentencing him to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine, which is ultimately affirmed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot ('First Appellate Court' for short) in Criminal Appeal -3- CRL.RP No. 686 of 2016 No.61/2011 vide its judgment and order dated 04.11.2019.
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 that on 18.01.2010 at about 6.00 a.m. on Bagalkot to Belgaum State High way, near Tulasigeri village, situated within the jurisdiction of Kaladagi P.S., the accused being the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-28/A- 7425 drove it in rash and negligent manner from Bagalkot towards Belagavi, endangering human life and public safety and dashed against the cruiser vehicle bearing No.KA-36/M-2602, which was moving in front of the Tanker lorry. As a result, CWs. 5 and 7 sustained grievous injuries and CWs. 6 and 8 to 14 suffered simple injuries. It is also alleged that two persons by name Narayan Sakare and Viresh Changli, who were the inmates of the cruiser, suffered fatal -4- CRL.RP No. 686 of 2016 injuries and succumbed because of accidental injuries. It is also alleged that after having caused accident, the accused did not inform the same to the nearest police station and fled from the spot.
4. On the basis of complaint lodged by one Suresh Channappa Meti in Government Hospital at Bagalkot before the Kaladagi Police, the investigating officer investigated the crime and submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences publishable under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC as well as under Section 187 of the M.V. Act.
5. After submission of the charge sheet, the presence of the accused was secured and he was enlarged on bail. He denied the accusation. The prosecution has examined in all Elevan witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and also placed reliance on Twenty Two documents marked at Ex.Ps.1 to 22. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of -5- CRL.RP No. 686 of 2016 accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the case of the accused is of total denial.
6. After hearing the arguments and after perusing the materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC as well as 187 of the M.V. Act and imposed sentence of fine for the offences under Sections 279, 337 of IPC and Section 187 of the M.V. Act and for the offences under Sections 338 and 304(A) of IPC he has imposed sentence of S.I., for one month and one year respectively, with fine.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused has filed an appeal before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, in Crl.A.No.61/2011. The learned Sessions Judge by the judgment and order dated 04.11.2015, has dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction -6- CRL.RP No. 686 of 2016 and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Against these concurrent findings, this revision petition is filed.
8. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State. Perused the records.
9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that both the Courts below have committed error in convicting the accused without properly appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence. He would also contend that the sentence of imprisonment is also on higher side. He would also contend that, both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the defence raised by the accused. Hence, he would seek for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the Courts below and sought for acquittal of the accused by allowing the appeal. -7- CRL.RP No. 686 of 2016
10. Alternatively, he would contend that the sentence of imprisonment so far as it relates to the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC may be reduced by enhancing the fine to a reasonable amount.
11. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would support the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the Courts below. He would submit that both the Courts below have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and no illegality or infirmity is found with the judgment of conviction, and hence, he would seek for dismissal of the revision.
12. After hearing the arguments and perusing the evidence on record, now the following point would arise for my consideration:
"Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate andconfirmed by the learned Sessions Judge suffers from any illegality, -8- CRL.RP No. 686 of 2016 infirmity or capriciousness so as to call for any interference by this Court?
13. There is no dispute of the fact that there is collision between two vehicles. It is also an undisputed fact that accused was the driver of the offending Tanker. It is further an admitted fact that number of persons have suffered simple and grievous injuries, who were inmates of the cruiser vehicle and two persons died due to injuries.
14. It is the case of the prosecution that the cruiser was moving in front of Tanker and the Tanker knocked the cruiser from backside resulting in the accident. On perusal of MVI Report (Ex.P11), it is evident that the front portion of the tanker was completely damaged. Further, perusal of sketch of scene of offence discloses that both cruiser and the tanker were moving in the same direction towards Kaladagi and the accident has occurred just before the junction, wherein the main road of Kaladagi joins the -9- CRL.RP No. 686 of 2016 highway. From the sketch of accident spot it is also evident that, there are speed breakers. The accused has also tried to take a defence that there were speed breakers and the driver of the cruiser over-took the tanker and since there were speed breakers, immediately, he applied break and as a result, the driver of the tanker ie., the accused being unable to control the vehicle, hit the cruiser to its rear end. However, it is also important to note here that as per Ex.P1-Sketch, even before tanker crossing the speed breakers, the cruiser has already crossed speed breakers and hence, when the accused was about to enter the speed breakers, he was required to take proper precautions, but that is not forthcoming. Apart from that, the speed of the vehicle can be imagined as both the vehicles were thrown to a distance of more than 148 feet. The damage to the cruiser itself discloses the speed of the tanker, which hit the cruiser from back side, as a result, the cruiser was thrown to front. When there are speed breakers, it was the duty
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 686 of 2016of the accused to take precautionary measures and it is not his case that there were no indication of speed breakers. All the material witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and the accident is undisputed. The witnesses have also deposed that the tanker was moving in high speed.
15. The accused would have been the best witness in the given circumstances. But, his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. discloses that, he did not give any explanation and it is a formal denial. Hence, considering these facts and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have rightly came to the conclusion that accident in question has occurred because of the driver of the tanker/lorry ie., the accused/revision petitioner and the judgment of conviction cannot be said to be erroneous or arbitrary so as to call for any interference by this Court.
- 11 -
CRL.RP No. 686 of 2016
16. As regards the sentence, the learned Magistrate has imposed sentence of fine for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and also under Section 187 of the M.V. Act. Since only fine is imposed, the sentence does not call for any interference by this Court. However, for the offence under Section304-A of IPC, the sentence of S.I. for one year with fine of Rs.2,000/- is imposed and for the offence under Section 338 of IPC, S.I. for a period of one month with fine of Rs.1,000/- is imposed. Considering the nature and gravity of the offences, the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 338 of IPC also does not call for any interference.
17. The offence under Section 304-A of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a period of two years or fine or both. Admittedly the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle (tanker) and due to his negligent act, two persons died and number of persons, who were all inmates of cruiser vehicle, have
- 12 -
CRL.RP No. 686 of 2016suffered simple as well as grievous injuries. In view of this aspect, the accused/revision petitioner cannot be let free only by imposing a nominal fine. However, considering the nature and gravity of the offences, the sentence of imprisonment for one year appears to be on higher side.
18. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused has also submitted that the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced by enhancing fine amount. The accident has occurred in 2010 and nearly 13 years have been elapsed. In between this period lot of water has flown. Further, as on the date of accident, the revision petitioner/accused was aged about 23 years.
19. Looking to the facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced from one year to six months by enhancing fine amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/-
- 13 -
CRL.RP No. 686 of 2016, which would serve the purpose. As such, the revision petition needs to be allowed in part. Accordingly, the point under consideration is answered partly in the affirmative so far as it relates to portion of sentence pertaining to offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
i) The revision petition is allowed-in-part.
ii) The judgment of conviction dated 05.02.2011 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot in C.C. No.325/2010 and affirmed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in Criminal Appeal No. 61/2011 vide judgment dated 04.011.2015, stands confirmed.
iii) The order of sentence for the offence under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC as well as under Section 187 of M.V.Act imposed by the learned Magistrate and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, stands confirmed.
- 14 -
CRL.RP No. 686 of 2016
iv) However, the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed for offence under Section 304-
A of IPC is modified. The revision petitioner/accused is directed to undergo
S.I. for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, he shall undergo S.I. for one month for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.
v) The sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
The Registry is directed to send back the TCRs to the concerned Courts along with a copy of this judgment, with a direction to the learned Magistrate to secure the presence of the accused for the purpose of serving sentence and collecting fine amount.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSP & KGR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28