Karnataka High Court
Basavaraju vs State By Kumaraswamy Layout on 3 February, 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1558 OF 2010
BETWEEN
BASAVARAJU
S/O.SIDDAIAH SHETTY
AGED 35 YEARS
R/AT.HUNASANAHALLI
KODIHALLI HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(By Sri: N NAGARAJ & M HANUMANTHAGOWDA, ADVS., )
AND
STATE
(BY KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
TRAFFIC POLICE,
BANGALORE
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri:NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP)
--------
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W.SEC. 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT-II, BANGALORE, IN C.C.NO.
3862/2003 DATED 31.7.2010 AND ALSO THE SET-ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT DATED 19.11.2010 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND
2
SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK
COURT-IV, BANGALORE CITY IN CRL.A.NO. 604/2010.
THIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The revision petitioner has assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.7.2010 in C.C.No.3862/2003 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-II, Bangalore and the judgment dated 19.11.2010 in Crl.A.No.604/2010 on the file of Fast Track Court-IV, Bangalore City dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate.
2. The prosecution case is that on 21.5.2003 at about 6.00 p.m. on Kanakpura main road, deceased Narayana was proceeding on his two wheeler bearing No.KA-05-R-1894 from North towards South and when he was in front of Hedge and Gole factory, a jeep bearing No.CAT-7272 driven by the accused 3 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner to the wrong side of the road and dashed against deceased Narayana, as a result , he sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment in Sanjay Gandhi hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. The accident was witnessed by PW-3 Muniswamaiah, who in-turn informed to PW-1- Manjunath- brother of the deceased Narayana. PW-1 lodged the complaint. Upon investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304-A and Sections 146, 145 r/w 196 of M.V. Act. The accused denied the accusation. So, the prosecution in order to establish the charges, examined as many as nine witnesses as PWs-1 to 9 and marked Exs-P1 to P8. The learned Magistrate upon hearing the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and appreciation of the evidence placed on record found that on 4 account of rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver, the rider of the scooter Narayana died and thereby he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A, 146 and 145 r/w 196 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.604/2010 before the Sessions Judge, who in-turn on re-appreciation of the evidence, by order dated 19.11.2010 dismissed the appeal while confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate. Challenging the orders passed by both the Courts below, this revision petition is preferred.
I have heard both the learned counsel, perused the records.
5
2. The point that arises for my consideration is:-
"Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the petitioner calls for my interference?
My finding is in the negative for the following:-
REASONS The sole eye-witness to the incident is one Muniswamaiah, who has been examined as PW-3. He has categorically deposed for having seen the accident while he was proceeding on his car, when he was hardly at a distance of 50 to 100 ft away from the spot of the accident. He went on record to depose that while the rider of the scooter was proceeding from one side, the jeep came from the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter and thereby the rider of the scooter died. Though he has been subjected to cross- 6 examination, nothing has emerged out of it so as to enure to the benefit of the accused. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are Manjunath-brother of deceased Narayan. He is not eye-witness to the accident. But he came to the spot, when he received information from PW-3. PW-4 is Dr. H.P. Shanthkumar, who conducted the post-mortem examination over the deadbody of deceased Narayana. PW-5 is Police Inspector of Banashankari police station within whose jurisdiction the accident has occurred. He has spoken about the receipt of complaint, registration of the crime and that he visited the spot and upon securing the panchas, he conducted the spot panchnama and rough sketch of the scene and occurrence Ex-P-5. PW-6 the pancha witness in the cross-examination has admitted police having drawn the spot panchanama in presence of him and PW-2. Though he was unable to say the jeep 7 and scooter numbers, his answer was that he does not remember. But he has admitted that both the jeep number and scooter number were written in the panchanama. PW-8 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected both the vehicles. He has opined that the accident was not due to mechanical defect. The prosecution has produced Ex-P5 rough sketch drawn by PW-5-Police Ispector, who investigated the case. If we go by the situation shown in the sketch, the road where the accident occurred is a two way road. The jeep was proceeding from south to North, whereas, the scooter was coming from north to south. The spot sketch clearly indicates that the jeep went off the road and it virtually went to the road which is meant for the scooter and thereby it dashed against the scooter. Thus there is sufficient evidence placed on record by the prosecution that the accident occurred purely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver 8 of the jeep, wherein the rider of the scooter Narayana died. Both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. I do not find any merit in this revision petition. Hence, criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-