Karnataka High Court
Girimallappa S/O Satappa vs The State Through on 24 September, 2019
1 CRL.RP.No.3016/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.3016/2013
BETWEEN:
Girimallappa S/o Satappa
Age: 36 years, Occ: KSRTC Driver
R/o Bijapur Bus Depot No.1
... Petitioner
(By Miss. Aishwarya B. Uplaonkar, Advocate
Sri Avinash A. Uplaonkar, Advocate)
AND:
The State through
Revoor Police Station
Tq. Afzalpur, Dist. Gulbarga
... Respondent
(By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C., praying to call for and examine
the records in C.C.No.192/2009 and set aside the judgment
passed by the learned JMFC Court at Afzalpur for convicting
the petitioner by its judgment dated 14.06.2011 and further
the same being confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Gulbarga in Criminal Appeal No.60/2011 dated
13.12.2012.
2 CRL.RP.No.3016/2013
This Criminal Revision Petition is coming on for
Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
"Whether the Courts below were right in holding that on 21.10.2008 at 2.40 p.m., on Gulbarga-Afzalpur Road, near Ingalgi cross, the petitioner drove bus bearing registration No.KA-28-F-1212 in a high speed and rash and negligent manner and caused the accident leading to grievous injuries to the inmates of the bus thereby, he committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC?" is the question involved in this case.
2. On 21.10.2008 the petitioner and PW.1- Ramanna were deputed to work as driver and conductor in bus bearing Registration No.KA-28-F-1212 on Gulbarga-Bijapur route. When the bus was proceeding near Ingalagi cross at about 2.40 p.m., bus went off the road and hit the road side peepal tree. In the accident PWs.1, 3 to 8 and 10 suffered injuries.
3 CRL.RP.No.3016/2013
3. PW.1 filed complaint as per Ex.P1 before PW.12-Head Constable/SHO of Revoor Police Station alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint, PW.12 registered the FIR as per Ex.P9 in Crime No.99/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 in the presence of PW.2, issued requisition to RTO for conducting motor vehicle inspection, then handed over the investigation to PW.9, the ASI of Revoor Police Station.
4. PW.9 collected motor vehicles inspector's report as per Ex.P10 and wound certificates as per Exs.P3 to P8, allegedly recorded the statements of the witnesses and handed over the further investigation to PW.14. PW.14 received some of the wound certificates and filed the charge sheet.
4 CRL.RP.No.3016/2013
5. To establish its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and M.O.1- glass pieces. The accused/petitioner did not choose to lead any defence evidence after his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
6. The trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 14.06.2011 convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. Further, the trial Court sentenced the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC for simple imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs.300/- each and for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC for simple imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs.500/-.
7. The petitioner challenged the said order of conviction and sentence before the Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, in Criminal Appeal No.60/2011. The first appellate Court by the impugned judgment dated 5 CRL.RP.No.3016/2013 13.12.2012 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
8. The Courts below held that the rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner was proved by the evidence of PWs.1, 3 to 8 and 10 the injured eye- witnesses. The Courts below further held that the defence of the petitioner that the accident occurred due to mechanical defect was negatived by the evidence of PW.13-Motor Vehicle Inspector and it was held that the evidence of PWs.1 to 8, 10 and 13 was corroborated by the evidence of PWs.9, 12 and 14.
9. The petitioner did not dispute the accident. But his defence was that road condition at the relevant place was not good and there was mechanical defect in the steering of the vehicle that caused the accident. He denied the rashness and negligence on his part or he driving the bus in a high speed.
6 CRL.RP.No.3016/2013
10. It is material to note that the accident was not due to any collision between two vehicles. When the petitioner was driving the bus on the road that went off the road and hit the road side tree. The petitioner was on the steering of the vehicle. Therefore, how the accident occurred was within the special knowledge of the petitioner. It was for him to explain that.
11. His defence regarding road not being in good condition is acceptable since the prosecution witnesses admitted that fact. Then the question is whether there was any mechanical defect in the vehicle. According to the petitioner, the button of the steering was out of order therefore, the accident occurred. Before taking the bus from the depot, he had not reported any such defect to the Depot Manager. Further, he himself did not report the accident to the police with explanation that accident occurred due to mechanical defect. 7 CRL.RP.No.3016/2013
12. It is his own defence that the road was not in a good condition, as rightly observed by the trial Court, if road was not in good condition and if the vehicle was driven in a low speed, the accident of the magnitude as reflected in the mahazar Ex.P2 and the Motor vehicle inspection report Ex.P10 could not have happened. The glasses of bus were badly broken and front corner of the bus was damaged.
13. The aforesaid circumstance/evidence was further corroborated by the evidence of PWs.1, 3 to 8 and 10 to the effect that the petitioner drove the bus in a high speed, rash and negligent manner. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any perversity in the findings of the Courts below that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner.
14. Then the next question is whether the Courts below were right in convicting and sentencing the 8 CRL.RP.No.3016/2013 petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. There is no dispute that PWs.1, 3 to 8 and 10 suffered injuries in the accident. Exs.P3 to P8 were the wound certificates of the injured. Exs.P3 and P6 show that the findings regarding the nature of the injuries whether they were simple and grievous was inconclusive.
15. Ex.P3 shows that the injured concerned to that certificate left the hospital without intimation and Ex.P6 shows that the injured concerned to that certificate got discharged against the medical advise, therefore, opinion regarding the nature of the injuries could not be given. In all other wound certificates, it is stated that injuries suffered were simple in nature.
16. Section 338 IPC applies only if grievous injuries are caused in the accident. However, the Courts below did not advert their attention to Exs.P3 to P8 and convicted the petitioner for the offence 9 CRL.RP.No.3016/2013 punishable under Section 338 IPC also which was unsustainable. So far as Sections 279 and 337 IPC, it is already held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner and PWs.1, 3 to 8 and 10 suffered injuries in the said accident. Therefore, conviction for those offences sustained.
17. The Courts below have sentenced the petitioner for those offences for simple imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs.300/- each. The said offences are punishable with imprisonment or fine or with both. The accident occurred about 11 years back. The petitioner is still in service. It is reported that the petitioner is not involved in any other similar cases subsequent to that. Under such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to modify the sentence by increasing fine amount and setting aside the sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, the petition is partly allowed. 10 CRL.RP.No.3016/2013
The conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC is hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the said offence.
The conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC is hereby confirmed. The impugned order of sentence of imprisonment for those offences is hereby set aside. The petitioner is sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC to fine of Rs.10,000/- for each of the offence.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*