Karnataka High Court
Narasimhamurthy vs State By Sira Police Station on 17 July, 2012
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.391/2010
BETWEEN:
Narasimhamurthy,
S/o. Kariyanna,
Aged about 31 years,
Residing at Guligenahally village,
Sira Taluk,
(Driver of Tractor bearing
Reg. No.KA-06-TA-3220-3221)
... PETITIONER
(By Sri G.Jairaj for M/s. G.Jairaj & Associates, Advs.)
AND:
State by Sira Police Station,
Sira Taluk,
Tumkur District.
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri Vijayakumar Majage, HCGP)
This Crl.R.P. is filed under Section 397 r/w 401
Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order of conviction and
sentence with fine dated 10.9.2009 passed by the C.J.
(Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., at Sira in C.C.No.96/2008 and the
judgment dated 26.2.2010 passed by the P.O., FTC-II,
Tumkur, in Crl.A.No.113/2009 and further pleased to
acquit the petitioner.
2
This Crl.R.P. coming on for hearing this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner was the driver of tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-06/TA-3220-3221. He was driving the said vehicles at 9.30 p.m. on 20.11.2007 on Madhugiri - Sira Road near Padmapura situated within the limits of Sira Police Station. At that point of time, on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor, the trailer rolled down and as a result, persons sitting on gunny bags sustained injuries and one out of them, Honneshappa sustained fatal injuries. Petitioner left the accident spot without providing medical aid to the injured persons and without giving information to the police. Honneshappa, when he was being shifted to Bangalore for further treatment on 22.11.2007, died on the way. Petitioner was not having driving licence to drive the vehicle. On the basis of a complaint, the respondent registered a case, visited the spot, prepared mahazar, seized the vehicles involved in the accident, recorded the statements of witnesses and 3 after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and also the owner of the vehicles for offences punishable under Ss.279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC read with Ss.180, 181, 187, 196 and 134 (a) & (b) of MV Act, 1988 (for short, MV Act). Accused denied the charges. Prosecution examined witnesses. Learned Magistrate found the petitioner - accused No.1 guilty of the offences under Ss.279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC read with Ss.180, 181, 187 and 134 (a) & (b) of MV Act. Accused No.2 was found guilty and convicted for the offence under S.196 of MV Act. Both the accused were sentenced.
2. Petitioner - A1 challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in Crl.A. 113/2009 in the District and Sessions Court at Tumkur, which was allowed in part, by a Judgment dated 26.02.2010. The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate, in respect of the offences under Ss.279, 337, 338 IPC was affirmed. The judgment of conviction in respect of the offence under S.304-A IPC was affirmed. 4 However, the sentence imposed was modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for six months. The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed for the offence under Ss.134 (a), (b) & 187 of MV Act was affirmed. The accused No.1 has preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed on him, as above.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner firstly, contended that, the Courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner though the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. He submitted that without proper appreciation of materials on record and application of mind, based on assumptions and presumptions, judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed. Secondly, there are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of interested witnesses i.e., PWs 1 to 4 and 6 to 10 which has not been noticed and in the circumstances, the Courts below ought to have acquitted the petitioner of the charges 5 levelled against him. Thirdly, the judgment of conviction of the petitioner has resulted in miscarriage of justice and interference in the matter is called for.
4. Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent, on the other hand contended that, for the purpose of finding out the guilt on the part of the petitioner, the entire circumstances must be construed as a whole. There being evidence of eye witnesses, the occurrence of the accident being not in dispute, petitioner having not at all offered any explanation as to how the accident took place, in the absence of mechanical failure of the vehicle involved in the accident, Courts below were justified in convicting the petitioner and passing the order of sentence. Learned counsel made submissions in support of the findings and conclusion of the Courts below in the impugned Judgments.
5. Keeping in view the rival contentions and the record of the case, which I have perused, the point for 6 consideration is, whether the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and illegal?
6. Shivakumara - PW-1, injured in the accident has deposed that, on 20.11.2007, he along with others was travelling in the tractor and trailer driven by the petitioner which was loaded with groundnuts at Javanahalli to Sira. At 9.30 p.m., on Sira - Madhugiri Road, near brick factory, the vehicles having been driven with high speed in a negligent manner, turtled down and accident occurred and he along with others sitting in the trailer sustained injuries and one Honneshappa who received fatal injuries, died on 22.11.2007, while he was being shifted to Bangalore for further treatment. He pleaded that accident occurred only on account of the negligence of the petitioner and that he lodged the complaint - Ex.P9. PWs 2, 3, 6, and 7 to 10 have also deposed with regard to they being inmates of the vehicles and the accident having occurred on account of the vehicles being driven with high speed in a rash and negligent manner by the petitioner 7 and they having sustained injuries and Honneshappa having died due to fatal injuries sustained. Wound certificates of the injured witnesses have been produced at Exs.P6 to P14.
7. PW-11 - Ravikumara has deposed that police came near the brick factory at Padmapura Gate on 20.11.2007, drew mahazar and seized the vehicles. He has signed the mahazar and supported the prosecution case.
8. PW-14, IMV Inspector has deposed that on 23.11.2007, as per the request of PSI, he visited the police station and examined the tractor and trailer. He noticed that no damage was caused to the tractor and left side of the trailer body was damaged and has opined that the brake system of the tractor was intact and that the accident having not occurred on account of any mechanical defect of the vehicles.
8
9. Except PWs 5 and 10, all other witnesses have supported the prosecution case brought out against the petitioner - A1.
10. Evidence brought on record clearly makes out that, on the ill-fated day, petitioner-A1 was the driver of the tractor and trailer in question and on account of the rash and negligent driving while road crossing, having taken an abrupt turn, the trailer rolled down and the inmates of the trailer sustained injuries. One of the injured, Honneshappa, died on 22.11.2007, while he was on his way to Bangalore for further treatment. Learned trial Judge and appellate Judge have considered the matter in detail.
11. Prosecution has proved its case by examining eye witnesses and panchas. Vehicles having been driven on the ill fated day and time by the petitioner and the occurrence of the accident are well established. There was no mechanical defect and no case of error of Judgment has been made out. Petitioner has not offered any explanation 9 as to how the accident took place. In the circumstances, the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below is neither perverse nor illegal. Prosecution having established its case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts, Courts below are justified in convicting the petitioner and sentencing him.
12. Keeping in view the fact that one person died and several others were injured on account of the negligent act of the petitioner, the sentence imposed is not harsh. There is concurrent finding of fact by the Courts below. No case for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out.
In the result, revision petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Petitioner is on bail. His bail bond and surety bond are cancelled and petitioner is directed to surrender to serve out the sentence.
Sd/-
JUDGE sac*