Karnataka High Court
Shri.Shankar vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2022
-1-
CRL.RP No. 100253 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRL.R.P. NO. 100253 OF 2016 (397)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. SHANKAR S/O. RAMAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: CHANNAPUR DLT, TAL: RAMDURG,
DIST BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH PSI RAMDURG,
KATKOL P.S.,
REPTD BY ADDL. SPP,
SPP OFFICE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTIONS 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 06/04/2016 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE
Digitally signed
ROHAN by ROHAN
HADIMANI
HADIMANI T
Date:
& JMFC, RAMDURG IN CC NO.361/2014 WHICH WAS
T 2022.12.12
18:25:45 +0530
CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER DATED 02/09/2016 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE,
-2-
CRL.RP No. 100253 of 2016
BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 59/2016 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PRESENT CRIMINAL REVISION
PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the order dated 06.04.2016 passed by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Ramdurg in C.C.No.361/2014 which was confirmed by the order dated 02.09.2016 passed by the Court of the VI Additional District Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Criminal Appeal No.59/2016 and consequently allow the present criminal revision petition.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. Heard Sri. Santosh B.Malagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V.M.Banakar, learned Additional SPP for the respondent.
-3-CRL.RP No. 100253 of 2016
4. The summarized facts of the case from the prosecution papers is that, on 08.07.2014 at 18:45 hours on Ramdurg-Katkol road in the jurisdiction of Harlapur village near Venkateshwar temple, accused drove the truck bearing Reg.No.MH-09/BC-5392 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life on the public way from Katkol towards Ramdurg and suddenly turned the truck and dashed to the motorcycle bearing Reg.NO.KA.24/K-9366 which was coming from opposite direction and caused the accident, due to which pillion rider of the motorcycle Kumar has sustained grievous injuries and the rider of the motorcycle Ramappa had sustained grievous injuries to his head, hand, legs and succumbed on the spot due to the said injuries. The accused disappeared from the spot without informing the fact of the accident to the nearest Police Station and thereby the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC and under Section 134 read with Section 187 of the M.V. Act. -4- CRL.RP No. 100253 of 2016
5. After taking cognizance, the learned JMFC, Ramdurg has registered a case against the accused in C.C.No.361/2014. In pursuance of summons, the accused appeared before the Court, statement of accusation under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., was recorded, accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the case of the prosecution in all 12 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 12 and 18 documents got marked as Exs.P.1 to 18. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses ,however has not chosen to lead any defense evidence on his behalf.
7. On hearing the arguments, the Trial Court has convicted the accused and passed the sentence as under:
"Order Acting U/Sec. 255(2) of Cr.P.C. Accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 279 of IPC accused is sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months and -5- CRL.RP No. 100253 of 2016 directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default he undergo SI for on month.
Acting U/Sec. 255(2) of Cr.P.C. Accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 338 of IPC accused is sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default he undergo SI for one month.
Acting U/Sec. 255(2) of Cr.P.C. Accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304(A) of IPC accused is sentenced to undergo SI for 2 years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default he undergo SI for one month.
Acting U/Sec. 255(2) of Cr.P.C. Accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 134 R/w 187 of M.V.Act the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default he undergo SI for one month.
All sentences run concurrently. The bail bond and surety stands cancelled. The MO.1 is worthless, it is to be destroyed after completion of appeal period.
The free copy of the Judgment supplied to the accused."
8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused has preferred an appeal before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Criminal Appeal No.59/2016, which came to be dismissed by judgment -6- CRL.RP No. 100253 of 2016 dated 02.09.2016. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the revision petitioner has filed this revision petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER:-
9. Sri. Santosh B.Malagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted his arguments that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and there are no evidence to prove the rash and negligent act of driving on the part of the accused. However, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences which is also confirmed by the Appellate Court and sought for acquittal of the accused.
9.1 Alternatively, he submits that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are in accordance with law and facts and then this Court having the revisional powers may modify the -7- CRL.RP No. 100253 of 2016 sentence passed by the Trial Court by imposing fine instead of imprisonment and to substantiate his arguments, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PAUL GEORGE Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI reported in 2008 (2) SCC 768and also the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.2272/2013dated 13.07.2022.
SUBMISSIONS OF SRI. V.M.BANAKAR, LEARNED ADDITIONAL SPP FOR STATE:-
10. Per contra, Sri. V.M.Banakar, learned Additional SPP has submitted his arguments that PWs.1 and 2 are the eyewitnesses and this incident have clearly deposed in their evidence as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. The Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the impugned order and judgment and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgments passed -8- CRL.RP No. 100253 of 2016 by the Courts below and sought for dismissal of this revision petition.
11. In the case on hand PW.1-complaint-cum-
eyewitness to this incident Shivshankar Chandrashekar Tenagi has deposed in his evidence as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. He has also deposed as to the contents of Ex.P.1-complaint. PW.2/injured-cum-eyewitness has also deposed as to the rash and negligence act on the part of the accused and he has also deposed as to the contents of Ex.P.1/complaint.
12. PW.3-Veeranna DyamannaBijaguppi has deposed as to the mahazar conducted by the Police as per Ex.P.7. Further he has deposed that Police have snapped two photos as per Exs.P.3 and 4 with CD-Ex.P.6.
13. PW.4-Mahadevappa BasavantappaUraligaddi has deposed as to the inquest panchnama-Ex.P.8 and also photo-Ex.P.5 taken at the time of conducting inquest panchnama.
-9-CRL.RP No. 100253 of 2016
14. PW.5-Dr. Rao sahib Satyappa Bunti has deposed in his evidence as to the PM examination of the deceased and also issuance of PM Report/Ex.P.10.
15. PW.6-Balakrishna SomappaSidnal, the Police Constable has deposed in his evidence as to the handing over the dead body and clothes of the deceased to the father of the deceased.
16. PW.7-Yallappa GadigeppaKoti, Police Constable has deposed as to the written panchnama as per Ex.P.7 as per the direction of his higher officer.
17. PW.8-Shankar Kalyanrao Kulkarni, Motor Vehicle Inspector has deposed as to the inspection of the vehicles involved in the accident and also issuance of MV Report/Ex.P.12, he has also deposed that the accident has not occurred due to any mechanical defect of any vehicle.
18. PW.9-Maruti BhimappaKamble, ASI, PW.10- Ramanagouda MallappaSankanal, PSI and PW.11-Vinayak
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 100253 of 2016 BhaskarBadiger, PI have deposed as to the respective investigation.
19. PW.12-Dr. Gangadhar Shankar Umarani, Medical Officer has deposed as to the examination of the injured and also issuance of wound certificate as per Ex.P.18.
20. From the evidence of pw1 complainant and eyewitness has deposed as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused,.and p.w.8 who issued the mv report the Exp.12 ,it clearly establishes the incident has happened not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle.
21. I am of the considered opinion that both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective manner. Absolutely there are no materials before this Court to discover the material evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgments passed by the Trial Court and which is confirmed by the Appellate Court. The
- 11 -
CRL.RP No. 100253 of 2016 Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has laid down principle that the High Court shall not interfere in the concurrent finding of both the Courts below except the finding of both the Courts is perverse which leads injustice to the petitioner/accused.
DISCUSSIONS AND DECISION ON MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE:-
22. With regard to modification of the sentence is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that age of the revision petitioner was 26 years at the time of accident and he is a driver by profession and he is not having sufficient source of income to eke-out his livelihood and he is only earning member of his family having wife, children and age old parents. Hence, reasonable fine may be imposed instead of imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC.
- 12 -
CRL.RP No. 100253 of 2016
23. The accident occurred on 08.07.2014. The age of the accused is shown as 26 years at the time of accident and he is driver by profession is having wife, children and age old parents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PAUL GEORGE Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI reported in 2008 (2) SCC 768 and also the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.2272/2013dated 13.07.2022 and sentence passed by the trial court for the commission of offence punishable under Section 337, I am of the view that instead of sending the accused/petitioner to the custody as per the order of trial court, it is just and appropriate to modify the sentence by imposing only fine, which would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) Criminal revision petition is allowed in part.
- 13 -
CRL.RP No. 100253 of 2016 (2) Judgment and order of conviction of Courts below convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A of IPC and Section 134 r/w 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, are confirmed.
(3) With regard to the sentence passed by the Trial Court, same is modified as under:
(a) Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month;
(b) Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months;
- 14 -
CRL.RP No. 100253 of 2016
(c) Accused shall pay a fine of Rs.51,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 304A IPC in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months;
(d) Accused shall deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial court within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(e) Fine amount of Rs.51,000/- shall be
payable to C.W.7 -
BasappaGireppaDyamangoud resident of Ujjinakoppa, Ramdurg, Belgaum, under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
(f) Remaining fine amount already deposited by the accused shall be remitted to the Government.
- 15 -
CRL.RP No. 100253 of 2016
(g) Registry to transmit the records to the Trial Court along with the copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE RH/DR