Karnataka High Court
Shiddappa S/O. Bhimappa Chunchanur vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 September, 2022
-1-
CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100015 OF 2014
(397)
BETWEEN:
SHIDDAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA CHUNCHANUR
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER
R/O. CHULAKI, SAUNDATTI
DIST: BELGAUM
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397
R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN cc
no.704/2010 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER
DATED 30.11.2013 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK COURT III
AND ADDL. MACT. BELGAUM IN CRL.A.NO.146/2011
CONFIRMING THE CONVICTION ORDER DATED 17.11.2011
PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE IN CC
NO.704/2010 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 279 & 338 OF IPC R/W Section 134 r/w Section 187
of MV Act.
-2-
CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2014
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. seeking to allow this criminal revision petition by setting aside the judgment and order dated 30.11.2013 passed by the Fast Track Court-III and Addl. MACT Belgaum in Crl.A.No.146/2011 which has confirmed the conviction order passed by the JMFC Court in CC No.704/2010 dated 17.11.2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 279 & 338 of IPC r/w Section 134 r/w Section 187 of M.V. Act.
2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranks in the trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 18.10.2009 at 5 p.m. near Achamatti cross, Munavalli road, the accused being driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA.26/F-398 driven in rash and negligent manner endangering the human life and dashed to the daughter of -3- CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2014 plaintiff Sridevi S/o Kallappa Hadimani, aged 5 years. As a result, the daughter of complainant sustained grievous injuries. After the accident the accused failed to inform the same to the concerned Police and also failed to give necessary treatment to the injured, thereby committed alleged offences.
4. After filing the charge sheet the trial Court has registered the case and taken cognizance for the alleged offence and registered the case in CC No.704/2010. In response to the summons, petitioner appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty.
5. To prove the case of prosecution, prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and 8 documents were got marked as Ex.P1 o P8. On closure of prosecution side, accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the allegations made against them and not chosen to adduce any evidence on his behalf. On perusing the arguments, trial court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under -4- CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2014 section 279 and 338 of IPC ad Section 134 r/2 187 of MV Act and also sentenced for commission of offence under Section 279 of IPC for simple imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to pay fine, simple imprisonment for one month. Accused is also convicted for the offence under Section 338 of IPC and sentenced undergo S.I. for a period of 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default to pay fine, the accused shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. Accused is also convicted for the offence under Section 134 read with 187 of MV Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default to pay fine, the accused shall undergo S.I. for a period of one month. Being aggrieved by the order of sentence , the accused has preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.146/2011 before Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III and AMACT, Belgaum. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused and confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.
-5-CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2014
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court has convicted the accused only on the interested testimony of the complainant. When the bus was going on the road, all of a sudden, the child came. Accordingly, accident was occurred that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the accused. Trial Court has not considered this point and not properly appreciated the evidence on record and convicted the accused for the alleged commission of offence. The Appellate Court also failed to re-appreciate the evidence on record and confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court. On all these grounds, sought for allow this revision petition.
7. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted his arguments that if this Court has come to the conclusion that both the Courts have rightly passed the impugned judgment, then, this Court can modify the sentence by imposing fine only as the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment or fine or both. -6- CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2014
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and profession of the accused, who is a KSRTC driver and the accused had not convicted in any case prior to the alleged incident, he sought for allowing the revision petition.
9. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP submits that both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective manner. Considering the evidence of eye witness and material documents Exs.P.2, 3 and MV report, both the Courts have rightly convicted the accused for the alleged commission of the offences and sought for dismissal of this revision petition.
10. On perusal of the evidence. It is clear that PW.1- Kallappa Fakkirappa Hadimani, who is the complainant and also the father of the injured has clearly deposed in his evidence that on 8/10/2009 when he was standing near Achamatti cross along with his wife and daughter, one KSRTC bus came in a high speed and dashed against his daughter as a result his daughter sustained injuries. -7- CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2014 Immediately after the accident, he took her daughter to KIMS Hospital for treatment. PW.2 - Mallikarjun Marigouda Patil said to be mahazar witness, deposed his evidence as to the panchanama and partly supported case of the prosecution and pancha witness-PW.3 Yellappa Ningappa Jalikatti has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.4 mother of the injured Smt.Sunanda Kallappa Hadimani has deposed in her evidence as to the alleged incident. She has supported case of the prosecution. PW.5-Shivapurtrappa Shivappa Hadimani, who is brother of PW. 1 has also deposed in his evidence as to the alleged accident as alleged by the prosecution. PW.6- conductor of the bus has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.7 is a head constable and PW.8 is the investigating officer, who have deposed as to their respective investigation conducted by them. Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is mahazar and Ex.P.3 is wound certificate, EX.P.4 is MVI report.
-8-CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2014
11. A careful scrutiny of the evidence placed before this Court, both the Courts have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 of IPC and Section 134 R/w 187 of M.V. Act.
12. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted his argument that at the relevant point of time, all of sudden injured came on road and due to the unavoidable circumstances, the alleged accident was occurred. This defence is not disclosed by the accused at the time of recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. accused has not offered any explanation in this regard. Even during the course of cross examination of the material witnesses, the learned counsel for the accused has not suggested this aspect to the witnesses. Therefore, arguments of revision petitioner cannot be accepted.
13. With regard to the modification of the sentence is concerned, offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for six months or fine of -9- CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2014 Rs.1,000/- or both. Offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for two years or fine of Rs.1,000/- or both, and offence punishable under Section 187 of MV.Act is punishable with imprisonment for six months or fine of Rs.1,000/- or both. The trial Court has not assigned any reasons for imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, 3 months for offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC. At the relevant point of time, age of the accused was 51 years now he is a senior citizen. The accused is only earning member in his family. Prior to this incident accused has not convicted in any case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and age of the accused, it is just and proper to modify the sentence passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1) Revision petitioner is allowed in part.
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2014
2) The impugned judgment passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Saundatti in CC.No.704/2010, convicting the accused for offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 of IPC and Section 134 R/w. 187 of M.V. Act which is upheld by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.146/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Tract Court-III, Belagavi is confirmed.
3) The accused shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and he shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC.
Accordingly, sentence passed by the trial Court in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 are modified. Fine amount already deposited by the revision petitioner, the same shall be remitted to the Government.
- 11 -
CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2014
4) Office is directed to send the trial Court records to the Courts below along with copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE HMB: up to para 7 VB : para 7 to end