Karnataka High Court
Sri Maktumhussein Mugutsab Karidawal vs The State Of Karantaka By Its Spp on 26 October, 2009
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26?" DAY OF OCTOBER» 32"'O'09'.' -
BEFORE _w_
THE I--ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. :'v4E1\{UAc}DPA_LA_
CRIMINAL REvIs1orI'PET1TiQ§I No. =3'ri5,'.2_g5_J£j
BETWEEN:
MAKTUMHUSSEIN __
MUGUTSAB KARIDAWAL, '
AGED ABOUT 35 Y.EARs;, _ ..
occ. DRI'JER3»I' I E'
R/O. HIRE'BAG.EwADI._.__ ' ' ' '
'1'Q- SAUNDiA?"_TI, " '
DIsT....BEmAUM.,_ ~
1 '1. PETITIONER
{BYxSRI'.'JAGADAI:S1;II?A'FIIL, ADV.)
AND A ' A V'
'-TPIEA'-AS'I"A.TE3 OEKARNATAKA
. 'V.,:BF1,'VIrI"'.S'S'1!IflLT'E: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
_HIAC;I-I_C0'LI.R'T BUILDINGS,
" _ I3,ANc-AI,oI§E.
' _. * RESPONDENT
'"{By--..'sm: "P.I-I.GOTKI-IINDI, HCGP) _TH_.IS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF _ PRAYING TO SET ASIDE) THE ORDER PASSED BY PRL. S.J., BELGAUM, IN CRL.A. NOL192/2003 DT. I _4_I"04*/01/2006 AND THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE) J.M.F.C., SAUNDATTI IN c.c. NO. 371/2001" DT. 13/10/2003. '"2 THIS CRL.R.P IS COMING ON FOR DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER;
Petitioner was charge sheeted ijy the Ievsipondpentl for the offences punishable U/sec. 337, I.P.C. and Sec.134 of §VI.V.i --i_oni-ifthe__'».i.aiiegation "that, on 16/02/2001 at ahout was a driver of 23 / 4307 while proceeding for the marriage ceremolviitiof the vehicle rashly and negligentiljrppii life, caused accident by ramming the4ii'V31:1i1c1e.v'*to 'Lheiroad side tree on the left side and ' a'vresuit, one Parvathi Mahadev Anandache sustained sefierrie' she succumbed to death and C.Ws. 8 to 19' 'sustaivnedfxiiuries, both simple and grievous and that he 'fled frornthe scene of accident without taking care of the "iii"nj.uired persons and failed to intimate the factum of accident toiigthe nearest police-station. After the p€'titiOI1€I"""E{CCUS€d 3;» or appeared before the Triai Court, the charge sheet copy and related materials were furnished to him, plea was wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed . Prosecution examined 20 witnesses i.e., P.Ws;1---- 20 "and. marked EXs.P--1 to 3 and M.Os. Noll t;i4?; 4}i,f£er'c1¢'sii:.¢ the prosecution evidence, accusedpgwasi ~e,§§aminediii'UV Cr.P.C. Denial is his defenceiiiiiiand theta not choose to iead any evidence. the prosecution case and the defence verspion, the evidence on record, Cdurt the prosecution has proved that the accused person driving of the vehicle KA 22/ resulting in death of one person. and ii'njury_t;o 8 to 19. As a result of its ctonvicteidfhie accused for the aforesaid offences 'and irnpo'sed..on_hi;n, the sentence. 2: aggrieved, petitioner filed Crl. Appeal. The learned 8; Sessions Judge after reappreciating the evidence ___""'anid reconsidering the record, has held that, there is no merit K /,2 in the appeal and has dismissed the same. However, keeping in view Sec. 71 Cr.P.C., in so far as the sentence is concerned, it was held that, since the accused is the higher offence U/sec. 304A of I.P.C., sentence to him U/sec. 279, 337 azjieses 1.P.c,i,i'e1i'e';ie'ct13z re V not required and accordingly the sentence iniposed, u.nd,eVr'w._ the said sections was set asio_1_e',~.,_pconfirr_nin.g 'the~.,se1*1tence i' imposed by the Trial Qourtpp,lfo-rt,'"the-»..,offencesv...piihishable U /sec. 304A I.P.C. andi"Ui/heee*.e__1,l:3{:- "Act.
3. Aggriepved, to set aside the conviction noticed supra.
4'*_I/earned petitioner contended that, the responduennt/'prosecution has failed to prove its case '--v_aga'iinst at-he 'vpetition'er]"accused and that the evidence placed iiprosi-ecution, does not meet the requirements, for convictionpiicnf the petitioner for offences punishable U/ sec. ir__279, 338, 304A of l.P.C. and 134 M.V. Act. Learned contended that, without there being sufficient i evidence on record, the conviction and ientence, are illegal / and the courts below have illegally passed the impugned orders.
5. Sri. P.I-I. Gotkhindi, learned HIfl.rC.G.l.3{i,"iC}}i:l:ai{iL};1g.II1<3i V through the record of the Trial Court prosecution has brought home -the giui.lV_ti'of V tii.§"iagc1iHs_¢:; bv examining the complainant, peanchas, Inspector of Motor i' i3rosecuting Officers. Learned Acounselrr_su_b--mit.tiedr th'at,i reference to the evidence conviction and order of and the Courts below have _o...-riiilliegality in convicting the petitioneir','«'*'the Revision Petition is devoid of merit. Lear_ned...'cou.nsel contended that, the scope of C V' revision l;eingz1irniteid"'for examination of the record and since "is rnaterial error or illegality committed by the Courts belovvjrio interference in the revisional jurisdiction is 'called for. ";.Learned counsel made submissions in support of '*itheifin_dings and conclusion of the Courts below, in the ' 'lirnlpugned judgments. K /
6. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the records, the point for consideration is:
"Whether the Courts below are '7' convicting the accused for the ofiences pirnishgbie' ._ U/sec. 279, 337, 338, 304A c;f"i;P.'c.,,and.; Mil Act and in imposing séntén¢é,..',a$ modified by the Appellate' Court?" it
7. There is no need'~~for theexiridence in the revisional jurisdiction vAc;oin'(;urrent finding by the Courts§beio§i;,r., myself, I have perused the V 81; Proseciitionvihas' «.aIi-egcd.' that, the petitioner was the driver ofiiifempoi at the time of accident on 16/O2;/20_.01. .i1ti_s"r1'ot the case of the petitioner that, he was '"no,t the said xiehicle on the said date and at the time was a cleaner of the vehicie, has deposed that,«-..they~ 1e_ft'~i'Be1gaum to attend marriage at Sogal and the accused was the driver. He has admitted that, he sustained to the accident. He has also admitted that, there death of Parvati due to accident. P.W.4 is an injured it witness. He was an inmate of the vehicle. He has deposed that, on the date of accident he was going to Sogal t_o'~.a"tt_en.d marriage and there were other passengers and the » was driving the tempo to Sogal to attend the"n'1ar_riagev"andv there were other passengers and the',acc_us,ed was»drivling---..thétc_' tempo in high speed, whichodashedl'-to' the sustained injury to leg and .shifte'dB}rlahongal Hospital. He has also l'theflother inmates also sustained the injuries. in the vehicle at the time of petitioner was driving in road side tree and as a resultflshel Vwas taken for treatment to Belgailm occurred around 9 a.m. She has identified the tempo'. fiiccording to her, other inmates in i V' the terfipigpz-sV.wer-re also Viinjiired and one person expired and she 'has identified ilthellaccused as a person, who drove the vehicle at the time of" accident.
A. P";\lVs. 6 to 15 have also deposed to the same effect. material has been elicited during the course of "<3-ross~wexamination, to disbelieve their statements. 1 /I
10. P.W.2 is a panch witness. Though he turned hostile, in the cross--examination by the prosecutor admitted that, it is true to say that on 16/O2/ i. was present and pointed out the plaoemof accideritisituated at 1'/2 furlong from the Chikkoppa thee spot. He has further admitted-.._that,"'thie police A..sei,zed_.3the tempo and took his signature to E>if.:P--4 and his signature is at vehicle.
However, in the cross--eXAami.nati.on jhe".hasi'jadrnitted that, he had not given and he do not know the he Cannot See the bounda;;'*hiesV,v ' is P.W.3, who has deposed xthuat-- him for panchanama, seized the ternpo, vi}hi.ohvh.e canividentify. A panchanama as per held, his signature is at Ex.P--4(b). In he has denied the suggestion that, poIi'~:,ehdid_ draw the panchanama as per Ex.P-4 in his 'presence, and did not seize the tempo. 1:1. P.W.19, is the Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector. has deposed that, on 17/02/2001 at about 4.35 p.rn. / I0
12. When examined under 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has denied every statement put to him and explained Vptophirn as the incriminating material. He has not chos¢'n"t--o'_'state anything on his own, nor has led any evidence"
that, the accident was on account ofipa mechanrichall de4fer:t..pAi.e..,p,, f a stearing rod having got; _4_Cut,l" the accident . unavoidable, took place.
13. it is on the basis "of the evidenr§e.,of. the prosecution witnesses, which_ha_s bee'r1"'1'eferred:'e.to ii1i.de'tail by the Trial Court, the judgin'erijti:_Q_f convictionwjasl recorded. The learned Appellate" the evidence and has concurred. the"'ifind'in_:g's.recorded by the learned Trial Judge._ _In ci'rcui.nstances, there is nothing illegal on the «-part-Viol' Courts" beiovv in coming to the conclusion that, V has proved its case by bringing home the guiitloli the 'accused beyond all reasonable doubts. There is Trio material on the basis of which any benefit of doubt can be to the accused. The evidence of the cleaner and "tithe; other injured witnesses clearly establish that, the .4 ll accident has taken place on account of the rash__ and negligent driving of the truck by the petitioner/ Except the cleaner of the vehicle, all other injuredHvvi'tn.e's.ses. i. have deposed that, the petitioner was driving"tl1--e,"v,ehi.cl'e, in high speed. The manner in which:=.the,_-vehiclee.has against a big tamarind tree itself spealgsi' the e.ras'hn,eVss and negligence on the part of the peiti'tio:ne:r driving the vehicle. In these can be taken to the findings of" to the conviction U/ lndisputably, as a result of name Parvati has passed to injuries sustained in the accident?'-. ill'.-«lenc«6i'.i2Vi:-*.iVl:}\xf--fii'ttéi'i~vietion U/sec. 304A I.P.C. is justified. For not_iinforrr1ing the incident to the nearest "V.pQiiC.é:»iSt£;tiO1'J_, the""p'e'titioner has been rightly convicted ii' /rseic'; _1 .. Act.
E14...__'L'eaii'ned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the sentence imposed on the petitioner i.e., imprisonment _and*»f"1ne is harsh. Considering the manner in which the ».accident has taken place, resulting in eath of one women /