Karnataka High Court
Sri. Siddappa vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46833
CRL.RP No. 810 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.810 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SIDDAPPA
S/O NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
OLD ADDRESS-SHANTPUR
SURPUR TALUK
YADGIRI DISTRICT
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
NO.246, GULBARGA SLUM
PEENYA 1ST STAGE
BENGALURU 560 058
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NISCHAL DEV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally BY DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION
signed by DEVANAHALLI
MALATESH BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
KC REPRESENTED BY LEARNED HCGP
Location: ...RESPONDENT
HIGH
COURT OF (BY SMT.WAHEEDA.M.M, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED IN
C.C.NO.2290/2012 DATED 30.11.2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DEVANAHALLI CONVICTING THE
PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304A, 279 AND 338 OF IPC
AND ALSO DIRECTED TO PAY A SUM OF Rs.3,000/- IN ALL
CONFIRMED IN CRL.A.NO.15010/2016 ON THE FILE OF V
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI
DATED 20.09.2018 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE SAID
PUNISHABLE OFFENCES.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46833
CRL.RP No. 810 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard the arguments of Sri Nischal Dev, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and further arguments of Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction dated 30.11.2012 in C.C.No.2290/2012 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, confirmed in Crl.A.No.15010/2016 dated 20.09.2018 on the file of the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District, has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition.
3. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
4. A complaint came to be lodged with Devanahalli police alleging that on 30.01.2012 at about 6.15 pm, accused being -3- NC: 2024:KHC:46833 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2023 the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02/EZ- 8551 ridden the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA- 53/V-9179 which was coming from the opposite side. Because of the impact of the accident, rider of the said motor cycle viz., Sri Sridhar and pillion rider-Sri Praveen Kumar, fell down. Rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-52/V-9179 Sridhar died on the spot, the pillion rider of the said motorcycle viz., Praveen Kumar sustained grievous injuries.
5. Police after registering the case, conducted thorough investigation and filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner.
6. Learned Trial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences, summoned the accused and recorded the plea of the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.
7. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, eight witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 8. The prosecution placed reliance on eleven documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 11 comprising of complaint, spot mahazar, inquest -4- NC: 2024:KHC:46833 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2023 mahazar, P.M.report, wound certificate, FIR, rough sketch, notice, IMV report, reply notice and indemnity bond.
8. The detailed cross-examination of prosecution witnesses did not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve the case of the prosecution.
9. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate recorded the statement of the accused as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein, accused has denied all the incriminatory materials including the accident.
10. Subsequent thereto, learned Trial Magistrate heard the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused and passed the sentence as under:
"Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand rupees only) in default undergo SI for 1 month.
Secondly the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and -5- NC: 2024:KHC:46833 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2023 sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand rupees only) in default undergo SI for 1 month.
Thirdly the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC and sentenced for three months imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand rupees only) in default undergo SI for 1 month.
The period undergone by the accused as under trial prisoner if any, is given set off as against the term of imprisonment now awarded, as contemplated under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Supply a copy of this judgment to the accused free of cost immediately as envisaged under Section 363 of Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds and surety bond shall stand cancelled."
11. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.15010/2016.
12. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused.
13. However, it is noticed that the State did not challenge the quantum of sentence, so also the de facto complainant. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:46833 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2023 Therefore, insofar as de facto complainant and State are concerned, the Order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Magistrate for the aforesaid offences has become final.
14. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition.
15. Sri Nischal Dev, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that the learned Trial Magistrate has not properly taken into consideration the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused. Therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition.
16. He further contended that in the event this Court upholding the Order of conviction, the sentence of three months imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code may be set-aside by enhancing the fine amount.
17. Per contra, Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned Orders. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:46833 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2023
18. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously.
19. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the prosecution has successfully established all the ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code?
(ii) Whether the impugned judgments suffer from legal infirmity, perversity or patent factual error, so as to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction?
(iii) Whether the sentence is excessive?
(iv) What Order?
20. REGARDING POINT Nos.1 AND 2: In the case on hand, accidental death of the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-52/V-9179 and accused being the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02/EZ-8551 is not in dispute.
21. The pillion rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-52/V-9179 is the injured eye witness. The wound -8- NC: 2024:KHC:46833 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2023 certificate of the pillion rider establishes the gravity and impact of the accident.
22. The police, after thorough investigation, have filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner. There was no challenge to the validity or correctness of the charge sheet filed by the police.
23. IMV report marked at Ex.P.9 does not show any mechanical defects in the motor cycle ridden by the revision petitioner/accused. The spot sketch also depicts rashness and impact of the accident. The defence that is sought to be put forward as could be seen from the suggestions made to the prosecution witnesses is that, it is the mistake of the deceased which has resulted in the accident.
24. But, in the absence of any challenge to the charge sheet, mere suggestions on the part of the accused to the prosecution witnesses that the deceased being the rider of the motor cycle was responsible for the accident cannot be countenanced in law.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:46833 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2023
25. Further, crowning all these aspects of the matter, accused has gone to the extent of denying the very accident itself.
26. In a matter of this nature, accused is bound to place his version of the incident before the Court. If accused deliberately fails to utilize such an opportunity granted by the Court, consequences in law should be followed and same has happened in the case on hand.
27. In this regard, gainfully, this Court places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012)9 SCC 284, wherein at paragraph 39, it is held as under:
"39. It is true that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C are not a mere formality or purposeless. They have a dual purpose to discharge, firstly, that the entire material parts of the incriminating evidence should be put to the accused in accordance with law and, secondly, to provide an opportunity to the accused to explain his conduct or his version of the case. To provide this opportunity to the accused is the mandatory duty of the court. If the accused deliberately fails to avail this opportunity, then the consequences in law have to follow, particularly when it would be expected
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46833 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2023 of the accused in the normal course of conduct to disclose certain facts which may be within his personal knowledge and have a bearing on the case."
28. Applying the principles of law enunciated in the said case to the case on hand, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has established that it is the rashness and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the revision petitioner that has caused the accident whereby rider of the motor cycle has lost his life and the pillion rider has sustained grievous injuries.
29. The prosecution having successfully established the said aspect of the matter, an opportunity was no doubt furnished by the learned Trial Magistrate by recording the accused statement and putting the incriminatory circumstances to the accused to explain.
30. The conduct of the accused in this regard is very clear in denying the very accident itself.
31. Accused failed to offer or place his version of the case either by orally explaining as to what actually transpired on the date of accident. He also failed to place any written statement
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46833 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2023 as is contemplated under Section 313(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
32. For the reasons best known to the accused, he did not step into the witness box to explain the theory sought to be propounded by him by suggesting to the prosecution witnesses that accident has occurred on account of negligence of the deceased.
33. Under such circumstances, recording the guilt of the accused and convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences believing the oral testimony of the eye witness which is to be kept on a higher pedestal than an ordinary witness cannot be faulted with.
34. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has rightly re- appreciated the material evidence on record and rightly dismissed the appeal of the accused.
35. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no patent factual error is pointed out by the accused/revision petitioner to term the impugned orders as
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46833 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2023 perverse in nature. Therefore, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and negative, respectively.
36. REGARDING POINT No.3: Learned Trial Magistrate has sentenced the accused to undergo three months imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, in his discretion.
37. In fact, the principles of law enunciated in the case of State of Punjab vs. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015)5 SCC 182 if applied, accused has to undergo minimum of six months imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
38. However, the State did not chose to file any revision seeking enhancement of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code nor the de facto complainant.
39. Therefore, in the revision filed by the accused, this Court does not intend to enhance the punishment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code in
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46833 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2023 terms of the principles of laid down in the case of Saurabh Bakshi, supra.
40. Thus, in the absence of any material on record which would warrant this Court to exercise its discretion insofar as reducing the sentence from three months to imposing fine alone. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered in the negative.
41. REGARDING POINT No.4: In view of the finding of this Court on Point Nos.1 to 3, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
(ii) Time is granted for the accused to surrender before the learned Trial Magistrate for serving remaining part of the sentence, till 10th December 2024.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 97