Karnataka High Court
Prakash Irappa Sanadi vs State Of Karantaka on 20 June, 2023
-1-
CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100194 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SHRI. PRAKASH IRAPPA SANADI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC : DRIVER,
R/O : M-MALLAPUR, NOW AT IRANATTI,
TQ : GOKAK, DIST : BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. A. NEELOPANT, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally
signed by J
MAMATHA STATE OF KARANTAKA,
J
MAMATHA Date:
2023.06.21
THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
12:27:00
+0530 HIGH COURT DHARWAD
BY BELAGAVI TRAFFIC NORTH POLICE STATION.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
***
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 AND
401 OF CR.P.C SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
BOTH THE COURTS, AND TO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY
THE II ADLL SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI IN CRL.APPL.NO.29/2013
DATED 06/07/2015 DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND CONFORMED THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE JMFC II
COURT BELAGAVI IN C.C.NO.854/11 DTD:17.01.2013 HAS TO BE
SET ASIDE AND PASSING THE ORDER OF SENTENCE.
-2-
CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 11.04.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Revision petitioner/accused feeling aggrieved by judgment of first Appellate Court on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.A.No.29/2013, dated 6.7.2015, preferred this revision petition.
2. Parties to the revision petition are referred with their ranks as assigned before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that on 24.7.2011 at about 5.10 p.m. on Belagavi Club road, near Bank of Maharashtra, accused was driving TATA Winger vehicle bearing No.KA-24/M-2446 from Belagavi Club road to Vishveshwarayya Circle with high speed in rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger to human life. On account of such actionable negligence of accused in driving the vehicle, dashed against motorcycle from it's back side and rider of motorcycle Sri.Prakash Deepak Benke succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident. It is further alleged that accused after the accident -3- CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015 fled away from the place without taking care of injured to provide medical assistance, further failed to give information to police station about the factum of accident. On these allegations made in the complaint, investigation was carried out and investigating officer filed charge sheet.
4. In response to summons, accused appeared through counsel. The substance of the accusation was framed, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution to prove the allegations made against accused relied on the evidence of PWs-1 to 10 and documents at Exs.P.1 to 16.
5. On closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. came to be recorded. Accused denied all the incriminating material evidence appearing against him and claimed that false case is filed. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of I.P.C. and Section 187 of M.V. Act.
6. Accused challenged the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the first Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.29/2013. The first Appellate Court on re-appreciation -4- CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015 of evidence on record by judgment dated 6.7.2015, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by trial Court.
7. Revision petitioner challenged concurrent finding of both courts below contending that evidence of PWs.1 and 3 are not sufficient to prove actionable negligence of accused in driving TATA Winger vehicle bearing No. KA-24/M-2446 leading to the accident in question. The Courts below have not properly appreciated the defence of accused with reference to evidence of PWs. 1 and 3 and spot features under spot panchanama- Ex.P.9, sketch map-Ex.P.6, as a result recorded improper reasoning in holding that prosecution has proved accusation levelled against the accused. The approach and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by both the Courts below and finding recorded cannot be legally sustained. Therefore, prayed for allowing the revision petition and to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both courts below. Consequently to acquit the accused from the accusation levelled against him.
8. In response to notice, learned High Court Government Pleader has appeared for respondent/State. -5- CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015
9. Heard the arguments of both sides.
10. The accident in question took place on 24.7.2011 at 5.00 p.m. on Belagavi Club road, near Bank of Maharashtra, accused was driving TATA Winger vehicle bearing No.KA-24/M- 2446 dashed against the motorcycle proceeding in front of the vehicle driven by accused and as a result rider of the motorcycle Prakash Benke succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident are the facts not in serious dispute and the same can also be born out from the oral evidence placed on record by prosecution. The only dispute is with regard to culpable rashness or negligence of accused in driving TATA Winger vehicle bearing No. KA-24/M-2446 leading to the accident in question. The material witnesses relied by the prosecution to prove the allegations made against the accused are PW.1, who filed complaint-Ex.P.1 and brother of deceased Prakash, PW.3- rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/EE-1319. The said evidence is sought to be corroborated by evidence of PW.9- M.V.inspector with M.V.report-Ex.P.15 and with that of investigating officers-PWs.7 and 10.
11. PWs.1 and 3 have deposed to the effect that on 24.7.2011, they were proceeding on two wheeler bearing -6- CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015 No.KA-22/EE-1319, PW.3 was rider of the vehicle and PW.1 was pillion rider. On another motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/E2956 Prakash was proceeding in front of them. When they reached near bank of Maharastra, accused came driving his vehicle from college road and dashed against the motorcycle of Prakash from it's back side. Due to which Prakash fell down and sustained injuries. Accused without stopping the vehicle fled away from the place and other two friends of Prakash, who came to the spot shifted him to district Government Hospital. PWs.1 and 3 chased accused and stopped the vehicle driven by accused in front of JNMC hospital, where the police have also arrived at the said place and caught the accused, they have taken him to police station. The injured Prakash succumbed to injures sustained in the accident. PW.1 has filed complaint-Ex.P.1.
12. The evidence of PW.5 would go to show that while he was on patrolling duty of civil hospital, he received information from control room to stop vehicle bearing No.KA- 24/M-2446 and bring rider of the motorcycle to police station. PW.5 has apprehended vehicle in front of KLE hospital and produced before PW.7.
-7-CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015
13. The defence of the accused is that PWs.1 and 3 have consumed alcohol in Veer Dhaba and while returning to their home riding motorcycle with high speed, the rider of motorcycle all of a sudden applied disk break due to which, vehicle was skid and Prakash succumbed to injuries on account of his own negligence. The said defence suggested to PWs.1 and 3 have been denied by them. The said defence is not suggest to investigating officer-PW.7. The P.M.Report-Ex.P.14 also does not speak anything about presence of alcohol contents in the abdomen. The defence counsel on the other hand contended that in P.M.Report-Ex.P.14 stomach contained 100 M.L. of yellowish fluid. There is possibility of same being alcohol, the same has been denied by PW.8. Other than above defence of accused, virtually there is no evidence on record to prove that deceased Prakash, PW.1 and 3 were proceeding on their respective motorcycles after consuming alcohol in Veer Dhaba and due to skid of vehicle driven by Prakash, he died due to his own fault.
14. It has been elicited in the cross examination of PW.3 that vehicle driven by accused dashed to indicator of the vehicle belongs to PW.3 and indicator was broken. There was quarrel between them with regard to the said incident and the -8- CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015 same was compromised agreeing that PW.3 to bear indicator expenses and accused to give the expenses of side glass. Thereafter, accused went away from the place.
15. The spot features recorded in the panchanama- Ex.P.9, sketch-Ex.P.6 would go to show that road at the place of accident runs from east to west and width of road is 33 feet. The place of accident is shown at the distance of 10 feet from southern side. The evidence of PWs.1 and 3 would speak to the effect that deceased Prakash rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/E-2956 was proceeding in front of vehicle bearing No. KA-24/M-2446 driven by accused. The photographs as per Exs.P.4 and 5 would go to show that road at the place of accident is straight road. The accused while driving TATA Winger vehicle bearing No.KA-24/M-2446 did not take required precaution in maintaining sufficient and safe distance between the vehicles dashed to motorcycle from it's back side which was proceeding in front of the vehicle driven by the accused, as a result of such actionable negligence the accident in question has occurred leading to death of Prakash-rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/EA-2956. The accused has not offered any explanation during the course of his 313 of Cr.P.C. statement as to compelling reason beyond his control and could not keep safe -9- CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015 distance in between the motorcycle driven by deceased Prakash and the vehicle driven by accused. The defence of accused that deceased Prakash, PWs. 1 and 3 after consuming alcohol in Veer Dhaba were proceeding on the motorcycle and while racing on the road, the vehicle driven by Prakash was skid and due to his own fault succumbed to the injuries cannot be legally sustained, since the same is not supported by any evidence on record.
16. The contention of learned counsel for revision petitioner that PWs.4 and 6 are eye witnesses to the accident and they have not supported to the case of prosecution, and PW.1 being the brother of deceased Prakash and PW.3 is friend of PW.1 are interested whiteness and their evidence is unreliable and cannot be legally sustained.
17. The presence of PWs.1 and 3 at the place of accident, having seen the accident is not disputed by the accused. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 3 is consistent enough with regard to the manner in which the accident took place. The evidence of PWs.1 and 3, complaint allegations-Ex.P.1, coupled with evidence of PW.5, who apprehended the accused substantiate the allegation that accused immediately after accident did not stop the vehicle to attend injured for providing
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015medical treatment and further failed to give information about the accident to nearest police station. The Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and justified in holding that accusation levelled against the accused are proved by prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
18. Now coming to the question of imposition of sentence, the trial Court has sentenced the accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 month. The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Accused is also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 month. The said sentence of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.
- 11 -
CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015
19. Learned counsel for revision petitioner in support of his contention that imposition of sentence needs to be interfered by this Court and appropriate compensation can be awarded for the death of Prakash relied on the judgment of Honb'le Apex Court in Manish Jalan V/s. State of Karnataka in Crl.A.No.1066/2008 in the said case before Honb'le Apex Court, conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of I.P.C. was maintained and sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone and in addition thereto, accused was directed to pay amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the mother of deceased by way of compensation. The mother of deceased filed an affidavit that she was ready willing to receive additional compensation fixed by the Court and on such affidavit of mother of deceased and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Honb'le Apex Court reduced sentence for the period already undergone by the accused and in addition to it compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded. In the present case, no any such facutal aspects are as involved in the aforementioned judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court.
20. The trial Court has imposed rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fine for the offence punishable under Section
- 12 -
CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015279 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine for the offence punishable under Section 187 of M.V.Act. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court not assigned any reason for imposing sentence of rigorous imprisonment. The imposition of entire sentence prescribed for the aforesaid offences is not mandatory. The court has to exercise its judicial discretion in imposing sentence looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, looking to the nature of evidence of PWs.1 and 3, the manner in which the accident took place and other attending circumstances are taken into consideration, then it appears that imposition of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for the aforesaid offences is too harsh and the same needs to be interfered with by ordering to maintain the sentence of fine amount with default clause.
21. If the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. by maintaining the fine amount imposed by the trial Court is ordered will meet the ends of justice only to that extent for modifying the
- 13 -
CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015imposition of sentence as ordered by the trial Court, which is affirmed by the First Appellate Court, interference of this Court is required. Consequently, proceed to pass the following.
ORDER Criminal Revision Petition filed by revision petitioner/accused is hereby partly allowed.
The judgment of the First Appellate Court on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.A.No.29/2013, dated 6.7.2015 confirming the judgment of the trial Court on the file of JMFC-II, Belagavi in C.C.No.854/2011, dated 17.01.2013 is hereby modified as under:
Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C.
and 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C.
The rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 187 of M.V. Act. is set aside.
- 14 -
CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2015The fine amount imposed by the trial Court with default clause for the aforesaid offences is maintained.
The registry is directed to transmit the records with the copy of this judgment to trial Court.
(Sd/-) JUDGE VB/-