Karnataka High Court
Vaibhav S/O. Gangadhar Birajdar vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 July, 2012
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2077/2012
BETWEEN:
1. Sri Vaibhav S/o Gangadhar Birajdar,
Aged about 52 years,
2. Sri Chandrashekar S/o Gangadhar Birajdar,
Aged about 62 years,
R/at Agro Industrial Area, Hydrabad Naka,
C/o.Rajeshwari Oil Mill, Solapur,
Maharastra. ...Petitioners
(By Sri Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
Rep by sub-Inspector of Police,
Town Police Station, Jamkhandi. ...Respondent
(By Sri V.S.Kulkarni, HCGP)
This petition is filed under section 397 (1) R/W 401 set
aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Addl.Civil Judge &
JMFC Court, Jamkhandi dated 29.06.2011 in C.C.No.292/2008,
confirmed by the Fast Track Court, Jamkhandi, dated 22.02.2012
passed in Crl.A.No.46/2011, convicting the petitioners for the
offences punishable under section 279, 337 and 339 of IPC R/W
Sec.180,181 & 187 of MV Act, and acquit the petitioners by
allowing the present Revision Petition.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the court
made the following:
2
ORDER
The learned counsel for petitioner files a memo stating that petition as it relates to petitioner No. 2 (accused No.2) may be dismissed.
2. The memo is taken on record.
3. The petition, so far as it relates to petitioner No. 2 (accused No.2) is dismissed as not pressed.
4. There are concurrent findings of the courts below that petitioner No. 1 (accused No. 1) is guilty of offences punishable under sections 279, 338 IPC and also offences punishable under sections 187 r/w 181 of Motor Vehicles Act.
5. I have heard Sri. M.T.Bangi, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Govt. Advocate.
6. The courts below have held that accident took place when petitioner No. 1 was driving a car, without holding a licence. The accident took place on a road between APMC yard and Umarameshwar circle. The width of road near place of accident is 15 feet. The injured was a pedestrian. The place of accident was a busy road where pedestrians 3 were darting across the road. The petitioner No. 1, was driving a car on a narrow road and he could foreseen risk of pedestrians, darting across the road and coming across the course of vehicles.
7. It is seen from the wound certificate that one of the wheels of car had run over dorsum of right foot of injured, causing fracture of right metatarsal bone.
8. Considering place of occurrence, the manner of accident and also taking into consideration that petitioner No. 1 did not hold any licence, the courts below have rightly held that petitioner No. 1 is guilty of aforesaid offences.
9. The point for consideration :
"Whether the trial court was justified in sentencing petitioner No. 1 (accused No. 1) to undergo imprisonment of three months, for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 338 IPC?"
10. The law is well settled that an offence punishable under section 338 IPC is an aggravated form of offence under section 279 IPC. Therefore, there was no need to pass separate sentence for an offence punishable under section 279 IPC.
4
11. As regards sentence of imprisonment for an offence punishable under section 338 IPC, petitioner No. 1 (accused No. 1) was driving the car on a narrow road. The car had not hit the injured when injured was crossing the road and one of the wheels ran over dorsum of right foot of injured which resulted in fracture of proximal phalanx of right fifth toe.
12. Considering these aspects, the sentence of imprisonment is deleted and fine is enhanced and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded to injured (PW-1). In the result I pass the following, ORDER The revision petition as against petitioner No. 2 (accused No. 2) is dismissed as not pressed.
The revision petition as against petitioner No. 1 (accused No. 1) is accepted in part.
The conviction of petitioner No. 1 (accused No. 1) for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 338 IPC is confirmed.
The sentence passed for an offence punishable under section 279 IPC is set aside .
5
The sentence passed for an offence punishable under section 338 IPC is modified as under:
The petitioner No. 1 (accused No.1) is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. Petitioner (accused No.1) shall pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to injured (PW-1) If petitioner No. 1 (accused No. 1) fails to pay compensation, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and shall be paid to injured (P.W.1) Sd/-
JUDGE SSM