Karnataka High Court
Suresh S/O. Basappa Naikar, vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 September, 2020
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRL.R.P.NO.2275/2011
BETWEEN
SURESH S/O. BASAPPA NAIKAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: BELAVANAKI,
TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADV.,)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397
R/W 401 OF CR.P.C SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT & ORDERS PASSED BY LEARNED FAST TRACK
COURT, GADAG IN CRLIMINAL APPEAL NO.3/2006 DATED
7/6/2011 & ALSO JUDGMENT & ORDER PASSED BY THE I-
ADDL. JUNIOR DIVISION & J.M.F.C, GADAG IN CRIMINAL
CASE NO.797/2004 DATED 22/09/2005 SO FAR AS IT
RELATES TO WHERE IN THE ABOVE NAMED PETITIONER
HAS BEEN CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 304-A
2
OF IPC R/W/S 187 & 196 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT MAY
PLEASE BE SET ASIDE & PETITIONER MAY PLEASE BE
ACQUITTED.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON
FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the accused/petitioner being aggrieved by the conviction order passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge Junior Division, JMFC-I, Gadag on 22.09.2005 in C.C. No.797/2004, which is confirmed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Gadag in Criminal Appeal No.3/2006, by its order dated 07.06.2011.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this petition are as under:
A complaint came to be filed contending that on
03.07.2004 at 11.15 a.m. in front of Maruti tyres shop situated towards north of Karwar-Bellari road cross, on Gadag-Hubi road, accused drove medium goods truck bearing No.KA-26-2951 from Mulgund Naka towards 3 Bhishmakere, Gadag in rash and negligent manner resulting in an accident, wherein a motorcyclist died on the spot. Police conducted detailed investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under section 279 and 304A of IPC and under section 187 of M.V. Act.
3. After securing the presence of accused, plea of the accused was recorded and accused claimed for trial. A detailed trial was held and learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offences under section 304A and under section 187 and 196 of M.V. Act and ordered simple imprisonment of six months for the offence under section 304A of IPC and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default sentence of one month.
4. Accused was ordered to pay Rs.250/- fine for offence under section 187 of M.V. Act with default sentence of 25 days and Rs.500/- fine for the offence under section 196 of the M.V. Act with default sentence of 25 days. Accused was acquitted for the offence under 4 section 279 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the said conviction judgment, accused filed an appeal before the District Judge which made over to the Fast Tract Court.
5. Learned Presiding Officer of the Fast Tract Court secured the trial court records and notified the public prosecutor and heard the parties in detail and dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the learned magistrate. It is those judgments which are challenge in this petition.
6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contended that both the courts have erred in law in convicting the accused. He further contended that the incident is one of human error and not intentional. He further contended that accused drove the vehicle in cautious manner and it is the motor cyclist who was at fault resulting in the accident and sought for allowing the revision petition.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that both the courts have properly 5 appreciated the material on record and convicted the accused and therefore, there is no merit in the petition and sought for dismissal of the same.
8. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the following points would arise for consideration:
i) Whether the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmities?
ii) Whether the sentence ordered by the learned Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. is excessive?
9. This court answers the above points in the negative for the following:
REASONS
10. Admittedly, the incident has occurred around 11.15 a.m. in the broad sunlight. The place of accident as is mentioned in the complaint is a busy area and accused should have driven his lorry with extra care and caution.
11. The Investigating agency after conducting the detailed investigation found that it is the accused, who is 6 responsible for the accident and not the motorcyclist. The learned Magistrate has discussed in detail about the acceptance of testimony of PW1 and 8 who are the official witnesses in the absence of eye witnesses turning hostile to the case of the prosecution. Trial court has also observed that accused should have stepped into the witness box and explained about the incident or at least offer some explanation while recording accused statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. In the absence of any such explanation by accused, trial court believed the testimony of PW1 and 8, even though they are official witnesses.
12. First Appellate Court also agreed with the said finding of the trial court.
13. This court does not find any legal infirmity in accepting the testimony of PW1 and 8 only because they are official witnesses. Moreover, they did not possess any previous enmity or animosity against the accused so as to falsely implicate the accused in the case. Thus, there is no merit in the grounds urged in the revision petition. 7
14. Further, State did not seek enhancement of the sentence ordered by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, as far as State is concerned, the judgment has become final. The trial court has ordered six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A of IPC and Rs.2,000/- fine. In the considered opinion of this court, said finding of the trial court does not require any interference from this court. Accordingly points are answered.
ORDER Petition is merit less and hereby dismissed. Accused is directed to surrender before the trial court for serving the sentence.
SD/-
JUDGE MNS/-