Karnataka High Court
Venkatesh vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.750 OF 2009
BETWEEN :
Venkatesh,
Aged about 45 years,
Son of Pillappa,
K.S.R.T.C. Bus Driver,
Residing at Chennamma House,
in front of Bus Stand,
Permanent residing at Nayakara Beedhi,
Gundalpet Town, No.162, 9th Cross,
Ashwanthanagar, Marathalli,
Bangalore. ...PETITIONER
( By Shri. Renukaradhya, Advocate for M/s. P. Nataraju Associates,
Advocates )
AND:
State of Karnataka
By Nanjangud Rural Police,
Represented by State Public Prosecutor,
2
High Court Building,
Bangalore. ...RESPONDENT
( By Shri. P. Karunakara, High Court Government Pleader )
*****
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397(1)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, by the advocate for the petitioner
praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order
passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, at Mysore in Criminal
Appeal No.15/2007 dated 27.8.2009 and the order passed by the
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Additional Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Gundlupet, in C.C.No.626/2004 dated 4.1.2007 and acquit the
petitioner by allowing the Revision Petition.
This Criminal Revision Petition is coming on for Final Hearing,
this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
2. The petitioner was the accused before the Trial Court in the following circumstances:
The petitioner was employed as a driver in a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus and when he was driving the same on 3 Gundulpet - Nanjangud Main Road on 21.01.2004, at about 3.45 p.m., it is alleged that he had dashed the bus against a roadside tree. As a result of the impact, a portion of the bus had caved in, as a result of which a passenger had sustained serious injuries on his head, back and other parts of his body and he had succumbed to those injuries. Apart from this, other passengers who were also seated next to him had suffered injuries. It is in that background that a case had been registered against the petitioner in Crime No.11/2004 and the petitioner having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the prosecution had examined several witnesses namely, PWs 1 to 10 and marked Exhibits P1 to P11. The Trial Court had framed the following points for consideration:
"1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 21/1/2004 around 3.45 p.m. near the land of Basavegowda situated on National Highway No.212, on Gundulpet- Nanjangud road at Hirikati gate the accused being the driver of Karnataka State Road Transport 4 Corporation bus bearing registration No. KA-09-F- 2453 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human lives and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 279 IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that because of said rash and negligent driving, the accused dashed the said bus against a tree on the left side of the road and as a result of which the inmates of the bus by name Manjunath and others were sustained simple injuries in the said road traffic accident and thereby the accused committed offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above date, place and time due to the accident one of the inmate of the bus by name Nanjundappa sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC?5
4) What order?"
The court below had answered point Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and convicted the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for three months and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for brevity); a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.250/- for an offence punishable under Section 337 IPC; and a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. That having been carried in appeal, the Appellate Court had reduced the punishment imposed under Section 304-A IPC to that of simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. It is that which is sought to be questioned in the present petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 6 petitioner was aged about 41 as on the date of the accident and was sufficiently experienced with a blemishless record. From the sketch that is a part of the record, it is apparent that the accident had occurred on a very narrow road which was about 24 feet wide with a footpath of about 2 feet wide. It was the case of the accused that there was a vehicle overtaking another from the opposite direction and since there was impending collusion, in order to avoid a more serious accident, the petitioner had been compelled to swerve the bus, as a result of which, a portion of the bus had struck against a banyan tree which resulted in the unfortunate death of a passenger. The allegation of the bus having been driven in a rash and negligent manner, is mechanically alleged against the petitioner and that there was no such negligence on his part and therefore, pleads that the punishment be set-aside. The learned counsel would further point out that this aspect of the matter was evident to the courts below and it is for that reason that the punishment has been drastically reduced as against the maximum punishment that was capable of being imposed under the 7 provisions that were invoked. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the punishment of imprisonment would certainly result in the petitioner's dismissal from service, as his employer is a Government undertaking and this would result in not only the petitioner suffering hardship which would extend to his family as well and therefore, would submit that there is a need for consideration of the circumstances of the case and the manner in which the accident has occurred, to allow the petition.
5. While the learned Government Pleader would vehemently oppose the petition and would seek to sustain the judgments of the courts below. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the findings are concurrent findings and the lenience that could be shown in favour of the petitioner has already been exercised by the Appellate Court, and any further consideration of lenience in favour of the petitioner, would result in the criminal prosecution being reduced to an empty exercise, and the plea on the part of the petitioner that he would lose his job or of such other inconvenience or hardship, is a 8 natural consequence of the act that is attributed to the petitioner and would not be a consideration for interference in this Revision Petition and therefore, would seek dismissal of the petition.
6. In the light of the above contentions and from a perusal of the record, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the sketch indicating the accident spot would certainly demonstrate that the accident had occurred on a narrow stretch of road. Though there is absence of any other vehicle being involved, the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does sound plausible. The accident would have occurred in a flash of a second and if the bus had indeed swerved to avoid an oncoming vehicle, the bus having struck against a branch of a huge tree and the resultant damage and the unfortunate death of a passenger was possible, without there being any want of diligence on the part of the petitioner. To attribute negligence or that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, may not be readily acceptable, given the nature of 9 the spot and that the vehicle involved was a heavy vehicle which cannot be easily controlled and there is no material on record to show that the bus was one with a latest technology, that the bus was well controlled as smaller vehicles. Therefore, attributing the claim entirely on the petitioner for the unfortunate accident, does result in hardship. On the other hand, if a hefty fine is imposed on the petitioner for the accident which no doubt can be denied, it would serve two purposes, firstly it would being home to the petitioner the need for caution at all points of time even in situations such as those that lead to such accidents, not at all times. Secondly, if the amount of fine imposed if made over as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased, the justice rendered would be more meaningful and would alleviate the suffering of the legal representatives of the deceased to a certain extent and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, even though the accident is an admitted circumstance, the criminal intent being absent on the part of the petitioner, any negligence that is attributed, again would be watered 10 down having regard to the circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. The judgment of the Appellate Court stands modified and the simple imprisonment of six months imposed for an offence punishable under Section 304-A is set-aside and in addition to the fine of Rs.2,000/- payable therein, the petitioner shall pay a further sum of Rs.30,000/- which shall be paid as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased passenger, namely Nanjundappa, after ascertaining the bona fides of the said legal representatives. With that modification, the sentence imposed by the Lower Appellate Court for the offences punishable under other sections referred to, is affirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS