Karnataka High Court
Pradeep vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19858
CRL.RP No. 347 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 347 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. PRADEEP
S/O MAHADEV
NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.295
EWS LAKSHMIKANTHANAGARA
HEBBAL
MYSURU CITY -570026
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THe POLICE OF
V V PURAM TRAFFIC
Digitally POLICE STATION
signed by MYSURU CITY-570002
LAKSHMI T REPRESENTED BY
Location: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
High Court HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
of BENGALURU-560001
Karnataka ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DATED 21.11.2019 IN C.C.NO.178/2015 PASSED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU AND
CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.392/2019 DATED 02.02.2021
FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 279, 304A OF IPC AND
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19858
CRL.RP No. 347 of 2021
SEC.134(A)(B) R/W 187 AND 3(1) R/W 181 OF IMV ACT AND
TO ACQUIT HIM FOR THE AFORESAID OFFENCES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard.
2. Revision petition is by the accused challenging the order of conviction in C.C.No.178/2015 confirmed in Crl.A No.292/2019 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) IPC and Section 134 (A)(B) r/w Section 187 and Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced as under:
"Acting under power conferred under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC and Sec.134(A)(B) R/w Sec.187 and Sec.3(1) r/w Sec.181 of IMV Act.
Further Acting under power conferred under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.2 is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Section 14 r/w Sec.106, Section 56 r/w Sec.192, Section 146 r/w Sec.196, 5(1) r/w Sec.180 of IMV Act.-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:19858 CRL.RP No. 347 of 2021 The accused No.1 shall pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Sec.279 of IPC.
Further the accused No.1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC.
Further the accused No.1 shall pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 134(A)(B) r/w Sec.187 of IMV Act.
Further the accused No.1 shall pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Sec.3(1) r/w Sec.181 of IMV Act.
If the accused No.1 failed to pay the fine amount, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
Further the accused No.2 shall pay fine of Rs.3000/- for the offence punishable under Section 14 r/w Sec.106 and Section 56 r/w Sec.192.
Further the accused No.2 shall pay fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence punishable under Section 146 r/w Sec.196 and 5(1) r/w Sec.180 of IMV Act.
If the accused No.2 failed to pay the fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:19858 CRL.RP No. 347 of 2021
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are as under:
A complaint came to be filed on 31.05.2015 alleging that on 29.05.2015 at about 8.30 p.m., Ramaswamy Gowda along with three more persons took shelter near Venkataramana Temple in Vontikoppal, KRS road, Mysuru on account of heavy rain fall.
4. After the rain stopped, they wanted to move to the other side of the road to reach their place. After they crossed one side of the road, and median thereof, when they entered other side of the road, an auto rickshaw came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against them. Whereby, Ramaswamy Gowda suffered head injury. Auto rickshaw got toppled and driver of the auto rickshaw also got injured. With the help of the general public, injured persons were shifted to hospital. But Ramaswamy Gowda lost his life on account of the accidental injuries sustained by him.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:19858 CRL.RP No. 347 of 2021
5. His son Naveen Kumar lodged the complaint and police investigated the matter thoroughly and filed charge sheet against the driver of the auto rickshaw. Charge sheet materials would go to show that the accused did not possess the driving license to drive the auto rickshaw and he came in a rash and negligent manner with a defective headlight on to the auto rickshaw. Presence of the accused was secured before the trial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences and charge was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.
6. Complainant being the son of the deceased who was examined as PW.1 and three more eye witnesses were also examined. All of them supported the case of prosecution. In their cross-examination no material is elicited so as to disbelieve their testimony.
7. Post Mortem report marked at Ex.P10 discloses the injuries sustained by Ramaswamy Gowda and doctor who issued the Post Mortem report has clearly opined that -6- NC: 2024:KHC:19858 CRL.RP No. 347 of 2021 death is due to coma as a result of head injury sustained by Ramaswamy Gowda. Author of Ex.P10 is also examined before the Court. IMA report shows that there is no mechanical defect in the auto rickshaw.
8. On perusing all these incriminatory evidence, it is evident that accused did not possess the driving licence and in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances including the accident.
9. It is also pertinent to note that in the very same incident, accused also got injured and while taking treatment, he has mentioned that he sustained injuries in road traffic accident on the same day.
10. Accused did not choose to lead any evidence on record nor filed any written statement as is contemplated under Section 313(4) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, learned trial Judge heard the parties and based on the material evidence on record, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:19858 CRL.RP No. 347 of 2021
11. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate, accused preferred an appeal before the District Court Mysuru in Criminal Appeal No.392/2019.
12. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court after securing the records, heard the parties in detail and by judgment dated 02.02.2021 dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge.
13. Being further aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned trial Magistrate and the learned judge in the first appellate Court, present revision petition is filed by the accused.
14. Sri.K.A.Chandrashekara, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have failed to appreciate that the accident has occurred beyond the human control inasmuch as PW.1 clearly admits in his cross-examination that at the time of -8- NC: 2024:KHC:19858 CRL.RP No. 347 of 2021 the incident, it was still raining and the auto rickshaw got skid on applying the brake by the driver as suddenly the deceased and his relatives appeared on the road.
15. He also pointed out that in such circumstances, despite the best efforts made by the accused to avoid the accident, accident has occurred and the trial Magistrate ignored the said piece of evidence and first appellate Court mechanically dismissed the appeal and sought for allowing the revision petition.
16. Alternatively, Sri.K.A.Chandrashekara, learned counsel contended that by enhancing the fine amount, the sentence of six months imprisonment may be set aside for the offence under Section 304A IPC and sought for allowing the revision petition.
17. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Channappa Errappa supported the impugned judgments by contending that there are four eye witnesses to the incident and they have all supported the case of the prosecution.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:19858 CRL.RP No. 347 of 2021
18. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, he pointed out that minimum of six months imprisonment has been granted by the trial Magistrate for the offence under Section 304A IPC and therefore, in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, there is no scope for reduction of sentence and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
19. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
20. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the accused was the driver of the auto rickshaw in question. It is also pertinent to note that driver of the auto rickshaw who is none other than the accused sustained injuries in the very same incident and while taking treatment, he has narrated that he has sustained the injuries in a road traffic accident.
21. Ramaswamy Gowda lost his consciousness on the stop and he was shifted to the hospital. Despite best treatment, he did not survive. The opinion given by the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19858 CRL.RP No. 347 of 2021 Doctor who issued the post mortem certificate viz., Ex.P10 shows that Ramaswamy Gowda died on account of coma resulting from the head injury sustained by him in the road traffic accident. All the eye witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution in toto and despite searching cross-examination of these witnesses did not yield any contra materials so as to disbelieve the case of the prosecution.
22. It is also pertinent to note that none of the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity so as to falsely implicate the accused in the incident.
23. It is found from the records that the accused did not possess the driving licence to drive the auto rickshaw. These factors on cumulative consideration has resulted the trial Magistrate to come to the conclusion that prosecution has successfully established that because of the accidental injuries sustained by the Rawaswamy
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19858 CRL.RP No. 347 of 2021 Gowda, he lost his life. The trial Magistrate has recorded a categorical finding that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by accused revision petitioner. No explanation whatsoever has been furnished by the accused to the incriminatory circumstances that is put forth to him in the statement nor any explanation is offered by him.
24. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAVI KAPUR V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in (2012)9 SCC 284 this Court is of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Magistrate that accused is guilty of the aforesaid offences is thus justified.
25. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court after re-appreciating the material evidence on record in the light of the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum did not find any ground in the appeal memorandum that would be sufficient enough to hold that the judgment of the trial Magistrate suffers from perversity or legal infirmity.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19858 CRL.RP No. 347 of 2021
26. Accordingly, recording of a finding that accused is guilty of the aforesaid offences by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the first appellate Court is based on sound and logical reasons and therefore, does not make out a case for interference by this Court that too in the revisional jurisdiction.
27. This would take us to the question whether the sentence, which has been passed by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the first appellate Court is appropriate or not.
28. Admittedly, Ramaswamy Gowda lost his life in the accident. The impact of the accident resulted in head injury and Ramaswamy Gowda went into coma and did not survive. Accused did not possess the driving licence and he has taken the auto rickshaw on the road without driving licence. He has been prosecuted for the said offence as well by the prosecution by invoking the charge under Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19858 CRL.RP No. 347 of 2021
29. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any mitigating circumstance put forth by the accused, sentence of six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A IPC is just and proper and therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court in this revision. Hence, following:
ORDER
1. Criminal revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed.
2. Time is granted for the accused to surrender before the trial Court for serving the sentence till 30.06.2024.
SD/-
JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38