Karnataka High Court
A N Gonabasappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2023
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
CRL.RP No. 559 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRL.R.P. No. 559 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
A.N. GONABASAPPA
S/O LATE NAGENDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NITTUR VILLAGE
MALEBENNUR HOBLI
HARIHAR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 601.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAJWAL PATIL, AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by B A KRISHNA THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KUMAR BY THE POLICE OF
Location: High
Court of BANNERUGHATTA POLICE STATION
Karnataka
ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT - 560 076.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.J. ROHIT GOWDA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
30.11.2012 PASSED BY THE C.J. (JR. DN.) AND J.M.F.C., ANEKAL IN
C.C.NO.1220/2009 AND CONFIRM BY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 19.7.2014 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND S.J.,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL IN CRL.A.NO.86/2012
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279,337 AND 304A OF IPC AND ACQUIT
THE PETR./ACCUSED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.RP No. 559 of 2014
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal (for short the 'Trial Court) in C.C.No.1220/2009 dated 30.11.2012 and the judgment and order passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short the 'Appellate Court') in Crl.A.No.86/2012 dated 19.07.2014.
2. The petitioner was charged for the offences punishable under section 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC before the Trial Court. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.11.2009 at about 10.00 a.m., at Bannerughatta - Jigani road, near Mantapa Cross, the petitioner who was driving the bus bearing registration number KA-01/FA-150 belonging to BMTC drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and while attempting to overtake a lorry had dashed against the rider of the scooter bearing registration no.KA-05-X-8131 and had caused the accident. As a result, the rider of the scooter namely Krishnamurthy who had suffered grievous injury in the -3- CRL.RP No. 559 of 2014 accident had succumbed to the same on the way to hospital. On the basis of complaint lodged by pillion rider of the scooter, a case was registered against the petitioner in Crime no.355/2009 by the jurisdiction police and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner.
3. The petitioner claimed to be tried before the Trial Court and therefore, the prosecution in order to prove its case had examined 7 witnesses as PW.1 to 7 and got marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. The petitioner during the course of his Section 313 of Cr.P.C., statement had denied the incriminating evidence which was available on record against him. 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 30.11.2012 convicted the petitioner for the charged offences and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 month for the offences punishable under Section 279 of IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a -4- CRL.RP No. 559 of 2014 period of 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month. For the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, the petitioner had filed Crl.A.No.86/2012. The Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 19.07.2014 had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Under the circumstance, the petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition.
4. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offences. The accident had taken place because of negligence of the deceased as he was riding the scooter while speaking on his mobile phone. He further submits that the material on record do not show that the petitioner was driving the offending bus in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident and therefore, the Courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. -5- CRL.RP No. 559 of 2014
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader has argued in support of the impugned judgment and submits that the evidence of injured eye witness PW.1 coupled with eye sketch Ex.P6 and IMV report ExP7 would clearly establish the case of the prosecution and the Courts below having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record have concurrently held the petitioner guilty. He, accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed on both the sides and also perused the material available on record.
7. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined 7 witnesses as PW1 to PW 7. PW1 is the injured eye witness to the accident in question who was riding pillion along with the deceased in the scooter at the time of accident. He has clearly stated that the driver of the offending bus which was coming from opposite side, while trying to overtake the container lorry had dashed against the scooter which was driven by the deceased on the complete left side of the road in careful manner. He has stated that the because of the accident, -6- CRL.RP No. 559 of 2014 the two wheeler was completely damaged and the deceased Krishnamurthy had suffered grievous injury and on his way to Hospital, he had succumbed to the same. He has also stated about the complaint he lodged after taking treatment to the injuries suffered by him. The said complaint is marked as Ex.P.1 and his signature is marked as Ex.P1(a). He has also identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending bus. Nothing has been elicited from this witness during the course of his cross-examination by the defence so as to disbelieve his evidence.
8. The rough eye sketch of the spot Ex.P.6 would go to show that the accident had taken place on extreme right side of the road and the offending bus had moved towards its right side and had dashed against the oncoming scooter in which the deceased was riding. This would go to show that the driver of the offending vehicle had taken the vehicle to the complete wrong side and had dashed against the scooter. The evidence of PW.1 would go to show that the driver of the offending vehicle while attempting to overtake the container lorry had dashed against the oncoming scooter. From the perusal of Ex.P.6, the evidence of PW.1 appears to be correct and truthful. -7- CRL.RP No. 559 of 2014
9. PW2 another eye witness to the accident, was the Conductor of the offending bus has also stated during the course of his examination-in-chief that the driver of the bus had tried to overtake a container lorry and had moved to the right side of the road and dashed against the scooter, which was coming from opposite side. This part of evidence of PW2 corroborates with the evidence of PW.1. Though this witness has also stated that the deceased was riding his scooter while speaking over his mobile phone, there is no corroborating material available on record so as to believe this statement of PW2. The petitioner who was the driver of the offending vehicle has not taken such a defence during the course of his section 313 Cr.P.C statement. The suggestion put to PW1 by the defence in this regard has been denied by him. Therefore, from the appreciation of evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is very clear that the accident had taken place when the driver of the offending bus had tried to overtake container lorry and had dashed against scooter coming from the opposite side and the accident was on the complete right side of road.
10. PW1 has stated that the driver of the offending bus was driving the offending bus at the time of accident in a rash -8- CRL.RP No. 559 of 2014 and negligent manner. The fact that the accident had taken place on the complete right side of the road when the driver of the offending bus tried to overtake a container lorry would establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. IMV report Ex.P7 would also show that both the vehicles had sustained damages on the front portion and therefore this would clearly establish that there was head on collision between the two vehicles. The evidence of PWs.1, 2 and sketch Ex.P6 would go to show that the accident had taken place on the extreme right side of the road and the bus had completely moved towards wrong side and caused accident.
11. The Courts below having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and have arrived at a right conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the alleged offences and accordingly they have convicted him. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below. Even the sentence imposed by the Courts below is just and proper and the same does not call for interference. The criminal revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is therefore dismissed. -9- CRL.RP No. 559 of 2014
The service of Sri Prajwal Patil who was appointed as Amicus Curiae is appreciated and placed on record and the fee of Amicus Curiae is fixed as Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).
SD/-
JUDGE NMS