Karnataka High Court
Sri.Nanjesh Gowda vs State Of Karnataka By on 23 February, 2023
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
CRL.RP No. 549 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRL.R.P.NO.549/2014
BETWEEN:
SRI NANJESH GOWDA
S/O LATE SHIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/A NO.188/E, MAIN ROAD
SANJIVINI NAGAR, LAKSHMANANAGAR
HEGGANAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 091
PRESENTLY R/A NO.83, IST FLOOR
KAMDYA LAYOUT,
ANNAPOORNESHWARI
NAGAR, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 091. ...PETITIONER
Digitally signed
by B A KRISHNA (BY MRS. ARCHANA K.M, AMICUS CURIAE)
KUMAR
Location: High
Court of AND:
Karnataka
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
KAMAKSHI PALYA POLICE STATION
BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - 01
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.11.2012 IN
C.C.NO.692/2012 PASSED BY THE M.M.T.C.-II, BANGALORE AND
CONFIRM DATED 8.7.2014 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C.-VI,
BANGALORE CITY IN CRL.A.NO.757/2012 AND CONSEQUENTLY
ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S
279,304A OF IPC.
-2-
CRL.RP No. 549 of 2014
THIS CRL.R.P. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-II, Bangalore (for short the 'Trial Court) in C.C.No.692/2012 dated 26.11.2012 and the judgment and order passed by the City Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bangalore City (F.T.C. No.VI) (for short the 'Appellate Court') in Crl.A.No.757/2012 dated 08.07.2014.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Brief facts as revealed from the records that may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition are, on 10.03.2012 at about 12.45 p.m, the petitioner who was driving a TATA LGV Tipper Lorry bearing registration no.KA-04- B-8467 in a rash and negligent manner on Magadi Road from Herohalli towards Sumanahalli, in front of Sumukha Sagar hotel dashed his lorry against the Honda Deo scooter bearing registration no.KA-02-EQ-5503 in which deceased Kiran G -3- CRL.RP No. 549 of 2014 Hiremath was riding and front wheel of the Tipper lorry ran over the deceased and caused him grievous injury and as a result he succumbed to the said injury at the spot. On the basis of complaint lodged by PW.2 - eye witness to the incident, the jurisdictional police registered a FIR against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. After completion of the investigation, the police had filed charge-sheet for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner.
4. The petitioner appeared before the Trial Court and claimed to be tried. Therefore, in order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined in all 6 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.6 and also got marked 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to P9. The petitioner denied the incriminating circumstances available on record during the course of his Section 313 of Cr.P.C., However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence nor did he produce any document in support of his defence. The Trial Court thereafter heard the arguments addressed on both sides and by its judgment and order dated 26.11.2012 convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section of 279 and 304(A) I.P.C and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for -4- CRL.RP No. 549 of 2014 1½ month for the offences punishable under Section 279 of IPC and the petitioner was also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to pay fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner had filed Crl.A.No.757/2012. The Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 08.07.2014 had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition.
5. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offences. She further submits that the material on record would not go to show that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. She submits that the deceased had died after he fell down from his scooter and hit his head to a road divider and not because of the accident caused by the petitioner. She further submits that the offending lorry was not at all involved in the accident and false case has been registered against the petitioner for -5- CRL.RP No. 549 of 2014 claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, she prays to allow the petition.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State submits that PWs.2 and 3 who are the eye witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and there is nothing on record to disbelieve their version. He submits that the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 5 would clearly go to show that at the spot of the accident, there was no road divider and therefore, the defence of the petitioner is not probable. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed on both the sides and also perused the material available on record.
8. The prosecution in order to establish its case in all examined 6 witnesses. PW.1 is the motor vehicle inspector who had issued IMV report as per Ex.P1. A perusal of the said report would go to show that the scooter which was ridden by the deceased was damaged on its left side. The offending lorry was damaged on its right side bumper. The material on record would show that the road in which accident took place was a -6- CRL.RP No. 549 of 2014 one-way and therefore, it is evident that the accident had taken place when the petitioner tried to overtake the scooter which was driven by the deceased from wrong side.
9. PWs.2 and 3 are the eye witnesses to the incident. PW.2 had lodged a complaint based on which criminal law was set in motion. He has deposed before the Court to the effect that he was riding his two wheeler on the very same road at the time of accident and he was behind the scooter of the deceased who was riding his scooter at the distance of about 100 meters ahead. He has stated that offending lorry which came in rash and negligent manner overtook his scooter from the left side, proceeded further and dashed against the scooter of the deceased. Even PW.3 has described the accident in similar manner. He has also deposed to the effect that the offending lorry had overtake his scooter from the left side and thereafter dashed against the scooter of the deceased. Therefore, PWs.2 and 3 both have stated that offending lorry had overtaken their scooter from the left hand side and dashed to the scooter of the deceased. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 also demonstrates that offending lorry had dashed against the -7- CRL.RP No. 549 of 2014 scooter of the deceased while attempting to overtake it from the wrong side.
10. PWs.2 and 3 have identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending lorry at the time of the accident. Immediately, after the accident, the petitioner was apprehended by the local residents at the spot. Therefore, identification of the petitioner and his presence at the spot at the time of accident cannot be disputed. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 coupled with the manner in which the accident had taken place would clearly establish that the petitioner was driving the offending lorry in a rash and negligent manner in endangering human life. The material on record would also go to show that the road in which the accident had taken place was one-way and therefore there were no oncoming vehicles. The petitioner while attempting to overtake the vehicles from the left hand side had dashed against the scooter of the deceased and had caused accident which shows that his negligence had caused the accident.
11. PW.4 is the doctor who had conducted postmortem of the deceased and he has opined that the death of the deceased was due to injury suffered in road traffic accident. -8- CRL.RP No. 549 of 2014 PW.5 is the investigating officer who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the petitioner.
12. The petitioner has taken a defence that while the deceased attempted to overtake the lorry he dashed against the road divider and sustained injuries. There is nothing on record to show that there exists a road divider near the spot of accident. Pws.2, 3 and 5 have clearly stated that there was no road divider near the spot of the accident and even the rough sketch of the spot at ExP.7 does not disclose the existence of any road divider at the spot of the accident. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court having appreciated this aspect of the matter have rightly held that the petitioner was guilty of the alleged offences and accordingly convicted him. The concurrent finding of the guilt recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless it is proved that the said findings are either perverse or illegal. Under the circumstance, I do not find any scope for interference . The revision petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, revision petition fails and the same is therefore dismissed.
-9-CRL.RP No. 549 of 2014
The service of Mrs. ARCHANA K.M. who was appointed as Amicus Curiae is appreciated and placed on record and the fee of Amicus Curiae is fixed as Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only).
Sd/-
JUDGE NMS