Karnataka High Court
Mahammadmustaf vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 November, 2022
-1-
CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRL.R.P. NO. 100176 OF 2016 (397)
BETWEEN:
MAHAMMADMUSTAF, S/O. AHMEDSAB BANNIKATTI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: KUKANUR VILLAGE, TQ: YALABURGA,
PRESENTLY JAKKALI VILLAGE, TQ: RON.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.V.SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH NAVALGUND P.S.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COUR OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.397
R/W. SEC. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT &
SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE, DHARWAD IN CRL. APPEAL NO.
36/2014 DATED 12/07/2016 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Digitally signed
ROHAN
by ROHAN
HADIMANI T
PASSED BY LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NAVALGIND IN
HADIMANI Date:
T 2022.12.12
18:25:27
C.C.NO. 185/2007 DATED 12/06/2014 PLEASE BE SET ASIDE
+0530
AND THE PETITIONER PLEASE BE ACQUITTED BY ALLOWING
THIS APPEAL.
-2-
CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2016
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The revision petitioner has filed this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the Judgment and order passed by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Crl.Appeal No.36/2014 dated 12.07.2016 and the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Navalgund in CC.No.185/2007 dated 12.06.2014 and acquit the petitioner.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. Heard Sri. B.V.Somapur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V.M.Banakar, learned Additional SPP for the respondent.
4. The brief facts of the case is that, the complainant is working as a driver in KSRTC. On 15.04.2007, he was on duty as a driver in bus bearing -3- CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2016 No.KA-25-F-1966 from Hubballi to Bijapur and when the said bus was proceeding at about 11:15 p.m. from Navalgund towards Nargaund after crossing Belavatagi village on tar road, a tipper bearing No.KA-26-4621 drove by the accused came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner therefore, the complainant took his bus on extreme left side of the road and the driver of the tipper dashed to the right portion of the bus and caused accident. After causing accident, the driver did not stop the vehicle and however the complainant got down and chased the tipper at some distance and stopped the tipper. It is further submitted that one of the passengers in the bus by name Suresh Pattar died on the spot due to injury and many other passengers sustained simple and grievous injuries and were shifted to hospital. Thus, the accused has committed the alleged offence.
5. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Navalagund has taken cognizance against the accused for the commission of the offences punishable -4- CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2016 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC and under Sections 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of the M.V. Act and case was registered in C.C.No.185/2007. In pursuance of summons, accused appeared before the said Court and enlarged on bail. The sentence of plea is recorded under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., having understood the same, the accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the case of the prosecution in all 21 witnesses are examined as PWs.1 to 21 and 35 documents got marked as Exs.P.1 to 35. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded, accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but he has not chosen to lead any defense evidence on his behalf.
6. On hearing arguments, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC and under Sections 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of the MV Act and passed sentence as under: -5- CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2016
"ORDER The accused is guilty and convicted for the offences punishable U/s. 279, 337 338 and 304(A), I.P.C. 134(a)
(b) R/w. 187 M.V. Act.
Heard both sides.
The accused having committed offence shall undergo 4 months of simple imprisonment sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in so far the offence punishable U/s. 279 I.P.C. is concerned.
The accused having committed offence shall undergo 4 months of simple imprisonment sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in so far the offence punishable U/s. 337 I.P.C. is concerned.
The accused having committed offence shall undergo 4 months of simple imprisonment sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ in so far the offence punishable U/s. 338 I.P.C. is concerned.
The accused having committed offence shall undergo 6 months of simple imprisonment sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in so far the offence punishable U/s. 304A I.P.C. is concerned. In default accused shall undergo S.I. for a period of 1 month for the offence U/s. 279, 337, 338 and 304A of I.P.C and 1 month for all the offences. In so far as Sec. 187 of M.V. Act is concerned the accused shall undergo S.I. for month and fine of Rs. 500/-.
All the sentences shall run consecutively. Looking to the circumstances of the case and the manner in which the accident is caused and conduct of the accused fleeing from the spot soon after the incident requires that the licence issued by the competent authority by directed to cancel the licence issued in favour of the accused.
-6-CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2016
Acting U/s. 20 of M.V. Act the competent authority that has issued the licence to the accused shall cancel the same and the period for which the licence shall stands suspended would be 6 months in the case in respect of offences punishable U/s. 279, 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C. and so far as the offence punishable U/s. 187 is concerned as the contravention is one Sec. 134 M.V. Act.
The accused is disqualified from holding the licence to drive the vehicle for 1 month from the date of this order. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned R.T.O. for compliance.
Free copy of the judgment is furnished to the accused."
7. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused has preferred an appeal before the II Additional District & Sessions & Spl. Judge, Dharwad in Crl.Appeal No.36/2014, same came to be dismissed by order dated 12.07.2016. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the revision petitioner has filed this revision petition.
8. Sri. B.V.Somapur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner submitted his arguments and he has not disputed this accident, but he has sought for modification of the sentence only to the extent of -7- CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2016 imposing fine. Further he has submitted that accused is now a senior citizen, he is having wife, children and old aged parents and he has to look after them. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, status and position of the accused, he sought for modification of this sentence imposed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court.
9. As against this, Sri. V.M.Banakar, learned Additional SPP has submitted that the Trial Court has passed a sentence in accordance with law that there are no grounds to interfere in imposing sentence by the Trial Court. On these grounds, sought for dismissal of this revision petition.
10. I have examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses and impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below.
11. PW.1 is the complainant, PWs.4 to 6, 9 to 11 and 15 are injured of which PWs.6 to 8, 9 and 11 have -8- CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2016 supported the case of the prosecution. The Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence on record along with the documents like spot panchnama, rough sketch, wound certificates, PM report, inquest panchnama and have passed the impugned judgments. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court has confirmed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. I do not find any illegality or infirmities in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below.
12. With regard to the modification of sentence is concerned, the Trial Court has passed the sentence as under:
"ORDER The accused is guilty and convicted for the offences punishable U/s. 279, 337 338 and 304(A), I.P.C. 134(a)
(b) R/w. 187 M.V. Act.
Heard both sides.
The accused having committed offence shall undergo 4 months of simple imprisonment sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in so far the offence punishable U/s. 279 I.P.C. is concerned.
-9-CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2016 The accused having committed offence shall undergo 4 months of simple imprisonment sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in so far the offence punishable U/s. 337 I.P.C. is concerned.
The accused having committed offence shall undergo 4 months of simple imprisonment sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ in so far the offence punishable U/s. 338 I.P.C. is concerned.
The accused having committed offence shall undergo 6 months of simple imprisonment sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in so far the offence punishable U/s. 304A I.P.C. is concerned. In default accused shall undergo S.I. for a period of 1 month for the offence U/s. 279, 337, 338 and 304A of I.P.C and 1 month for all the offences. In so far as Sec. 187 of M.V. Act is concerned the accused shall undergo S.I. for month and fine of Rs. 500/-.
All the sentences shall run consecutively. Looking to the circumstances of the case and the manner in which the accident is caused and conduct of the accused fleeing from the spot soon after the incident requires that the licence issued by the competent authority by directed to cancel the licence issued in favour of the accused.
Acting U/s. 20 of M.V. Act the competent authority that has issued the licence to the accused shall cancel the same and the period for which the licence shall stands suspended would be 6 months in the case in respect of offences punishable U/s. 279, 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C. and so far as the offence punishable U/s. 187 is concerned as the contravention is one Sec. 134 M.V. Act.
The accused is disqualified from holding the licence to drive the vehicle for 1 month from the date of this order. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned R.T.O. for compliance.
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2016 Free copy of the judgment is furnished to the accused."
13. The accident has occurred on 15.04.2007. At the time of the accident, the age of the accused was 47 years. Now the age of the accused is 60 years. The occupation of the accused is driver, same is also shown in the charge sheet and he is having wife, children and old aged parents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that the accused is not having sufficient source of income and he is also the only bread earning member in the family.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in mind of 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.2272/2013 dated 13.07.2022 and sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC and under Sections 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of the MV
- 11 -
CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2016 Act, I am of the considered opinion that instead of sending the accused to the custody as per the sentence passed by the Trial Court it is just and proper in modifying the imposition of fine will meet the needs of justice. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The revision petition is allowed in part. ii. The judgments of both the Courts below of convicting the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC are modified as under:
a. The petitioner/accused shall pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one(1) month.
- 12 -
CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2016 b. The petitioner/accused shall pay a fine amount of Rs.500/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 337 of the IPC, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one(1) month. c. The petitioner/accused shall pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 338 of the IPC, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three(3) months.
d. The petitioner/accused shall pay a fine amount of Rs.50,000/- excluding the amount already deposited by the petitioner/accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six(6) months.
- 13 -
CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2016 iii. The fine amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be payable to the legal representatives of the deceased. iv. Trial Court is directed to ascertain as to the legal representatives of the deceased by conducting proper enquiry under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. v. Remaining fine amount already deposited by the accused shall be remitted to the Government. vi. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court Records along with a copy of this order to the Trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE RH