Karnataka High Court
Shivanand vs The State on 2 December, 2022
1 CRL.RP.No.200040/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200040/2020
BETWEEN:
Shivanand S/o Manikrao Patil
Now aged: 38 years
Occ: Govt. Servant
R/o H.No.17-4-255, Gumpa Road
Near DCC Bank, Mahesh Nagar
Bidar, Tq. & Dist. Bidar-585403
... Petitioner
(By Sri Anilkumar Navadagi, Advocate)
AND:
The State through Traffic Police Station
Bidar, Tq. & Dist. Bidar
By the Addl. S.P.P. High Court of
Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench-585103
... Respondent
(By Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, HCGP)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397
read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the
judgment and order dated 15.06.2020 of Prl. Dist. & Sessions
Judge, Bidar in Crl.Appeal No.14/2017, confirming the judgment
of conviction dated 17.03.2017 of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC-II,
Bidar in C.C.No.2114/2014 in respect of offences punishable
2 CRL.RP.No.200040/2020
under Sections 279, 338 of IPC and Sec.181 of MV Act and
order of sentence of SI for six months for offence U/Sec. 279 of
IPC, sentence of SI for three months for offence U/Sec. 181 of
MV Act and reducing the sentence from two years to one year
for the offence U/Sec. 338 of IPC and further to acquit the
petitioner of all the charges for which he was convicted, in the
interest of justice and equity.
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner was tried in C.C.No.2114/2014 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Bidar for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 181 (3) and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
That the petitioner is registered owner of car bearing Reg.No.AP-09/N-8722. On 16.10.2014 at about 17.45 hours he drove the said car in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life near Mahaveer Chowk, Bidar. At the same time, PW-1 Subhash was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02/EM- 3 CRL.RP.No.200040/2020 902 near the said circle. The petitioner hit the motor cycle of PW-1 by driving his vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Due to such accident, PW-1 suffered fracture of tibia and fibula of left leg and injury on his left shoulder and left hand fingers.
3. The petitioner himself shifted PW-1 to Bidar Government Hospital. PW-5 the Medical Officer of the said hospital gave him preliminary treatment and sent him to the higher medical centre. He issued wound certificate as per Ex.P-3. PW-6 the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Traffic Police Station, Bidar, on receiving the MLC intimation from the hospital, visited the hospital and recorded statement of PW-1 as per Ex.P-1. On that basis he registered the FIR as per Ex.P-5 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. After investigation, PW-6 filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC and Sections 181 (3) and 196 of the M.V. 4 CRL.RP.No.200040/2020 Act. The Trial Court, on taking cognizance, summoned the petitioner and tried him for the aforesaid offences.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-6 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5. After his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner did not lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court, on hearing the parties, convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 of IPC and under Sections 181 (3) and 196 of the M.V. Act and sentenced him for each of the offences as follows:
Sl.
Offence Sentence Fine No. 1. Section 279 of IPC S.I. for six months - 2. Section 338 of IPC S.I. for two years - 3. Section 181 of M.V. Act S.I. for three - months 4. Section 196 of M.V. Act S.I. for three - months
5. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.14/2017 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar. The first appellate court, on re-appreciation of the evidence and hearing the parties, by the impugned 5 CRL.RP.No.200040/2020 order, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 196 of the M.V. Act. So far as the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC, the first appellate court reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year and confirmed the rest of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the above revision petition is filed.
6. Sri Anil Kumar Navadagi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence of the injured -
PW-1 himself did not indicate that the petitioner was rash and negligent in driving, so as to endanger the human life. Mere speed of the vehicle is not sufficient to convict for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. He further submits that even assuming that the incident has taken place, the petitioner has no other criminal antecedents and he is a Government servant having family. Therefore, the Courts below should have extended the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and released him on probation of good conduct. 6 CRL.RP.No.200040/2020
7. Per contra, Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader justifies the impugned order of conviction and sentence on the ground that the evidence of injured, medical evidence and other evidence was cogent and consistent. He further submits that having regard to the nature of injuries, it would not be appropriate to extend the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.
8. Heard the arguments of both side and perused the material on record.
9. The question that arises for consideration is "Whether the impugned order of conviction and sentence suffers any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness warranting interference of this court?"
10. So far as the conviction of the appellant, the trial court and the first appellate court both on appreciation and re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence concurrently held that the accident occurred due to rash 7 CRL.RP.No.200040/2020 and negligent driving of the vehicle of the petitioner. In that regard, the evidence of injured eyewitness - P.W.1 was supported by the medical evidence and other evidence on record. That evidence was further corroborated by the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report - Ex.P.4 which showed the dents of the offending vehicle. There was no explanation by the petitioner for such dents. It was not disputed that the petitioner himself got released the vehicle from the police custody. Under the circumstances, it is not a fit case to interfere with such concurrent findings of fact in the revisional jurisdiction.
11. Injured was the teacher. The first appellate court taking into consideration that the prosecution did not discharge its initial burden by producing registration certificate to show that the petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle acquitted him of the offence punishable under Section 196 of Motor Vehicles Act. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had any criminal antecedents. According to the complaint it was the 8 CRL.RP.No.200040/2020 petitioner himself who took steps to rescue P.W.1 the victim and shifted him to the hospital. That is a mitigating circumstance in his favour.
12. It is submitted that at the time of the accident, the petitioner was serving as Village Accountant and in course of time by this time he was promoted as Food Inspector. It is also submitted that he has paid Rs.1,60,000/- to P.W.1 by way of compensation. Proviso to Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act requires that before extending the benefit of probation to the offender under that section, the court shall satisfy itself about the place of abode of the offender or his surety being within the jurisdiction of the court. For that purpose and to ascertain the antecedents, character of the petitioner, this court felt necessary to call for the report of the concerned Probation Officer and accordingly directed the concerned Probation Officer.
9 CRL.RP.No.200040/2020
13. In compliance of the order of this court, the Superintendent of Police, Bidar has submitted his report instead of Probation Officer's report. As per the said report except the offence in this case the petitioner is not involved in any other cases. However, the fact remains that the petitioner himself being a public servant has driven the vehicle in a public place without the driving licence in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to human life and has caused multiple fractures to the left leg of P.W.1. Under these circumstances, it would not be proper to refer the matter further for receipt of the Probation Officer's report.
14. The major offence under Section 338 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment upto two years or with fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or with both. The offence under Section 279 of IPC is punishable with six months imprisonment or with fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or with both. The offence under Section 181 of Motor 10 CRL.RP.No.200040/2020 Vehicles Act is punishable with imprisonment upto three months or with fine of Rs.5,000/- or with both.
15. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and having regard to the material on record the ends of justice will be met by sentencing the petitioner to fine and by awarding appropriate compensation to the victim. Hence, the following:
ORDER The revision petition is partly allowed. The impugned order of conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC and Section 181 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is hereby confirmed.
The impugned order of sentence is
modified as follows;
For the offence under Section 279 of IPC the petitioner is sentenced to fine of Rs.1,000/-. For the offence under Section 338 of IPC, the 11 CRL.RP.No.200040/2020 petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. For the offence under Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioner is sentenced to fine of Rs.5000/-.
In default to pay the above said fine amounts, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month for each of the offences.
Acting under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., the petitioner is directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- payable to P.W.1 the injured. The said compensation shall be deposited before the trial court within 30 days from the date of this order.
If the petitioner fails to deposit the said compensation amount, the same shall be recovered as fine.12 CRL.RP.No.200040/2020
On deposit of such amount, the trial court shall disburse the same to P.W.1 on due identification.
The trial court shall issue the modified conviction warrant accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Swk/BL