Karnataka High Court
Ayyappa S/O. Amarappa Amarannavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.2297 OF 2013 (397)
BETWEEN
AYYAPPA
S/O. AMARAPPA AMARANNAVAR
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER
R/O. KOTIKAL, GULEDGUDDA,
TAL : BADAMI, DIST:BAGALKOT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N L BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GULEDGUD PS
REPTD. BY SPP
Digitally
signed by
DHARWAD.
ROHAN
ROHAN HADIMANI
HADIMANI T
...RESPONDENT
T Date:
2022.11.05
10:25:48
+0530
(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397
R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 30.09.2013 PASSED BY
THE DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, IN
CRL.A.NO.109/2010 CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, BADAMI, IN C.C.NO.121/2008,
DATED 04.12.2010 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCE.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
03.09.2022 FOR ORDERS AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 04.12.2010 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC., Court, Badami in C.C. No.121/2008 which was confirmed by the judgment and order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote in Criminal Appeal No.109/2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act.
2. The ranks of the parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.08.2007 in the morning, the accused being driver of tractor bearing Registration No.KA-29/T449-50 drove it in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life near Saraswathi Nagar, at the down road. As a result tractor turtle down, Cws.1, 8 and 9 have sustained injuries and he does not intimated the Police as to this accident. Thus, accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC and Section 187 of the MV Act. After investigation, concerned Police have submitted charge sheet against the 3 accused for the alleged commission of offence. Case was registered in CC No.121/2008. Accused appeared before the said Court and evidence was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, out of total 13 witnesses, prosecution has got examined 11 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.11 and got marked 15 documents as EX.P1 to Ex.P.15. On closure of prosecution side, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused has denied the evidence appearing against him. But he has not chosen to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf. On hearing the arguments, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the commission of the offence under Section 279, 337, 338 of IPC and Section 187 of MV Act and passed a sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine amount of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of the fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further 4 period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC. The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay the fine amount of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of the fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the accused has preferred an appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in Crl.A.No.109/2010 and the same was dismissed on 30.09.2013 as against this judgment, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted his arguments that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective manner. The alleged accident took place only because of hook of trailer was broken. This fact is not at all considered by both the Courts below. PW.7 who was proceeding in the tractor has clearly stated in his cross examination that as alleged, accident took place only because of hook attached between the Tractor and Trailer was broken. Hence, he sought for allowing this revision petition. 5
6. Alternatively, learned counsel has submitted that if this Court has confirmed the conviction passed by both the Courts below, then this Court can impose fine only as the alleged offences are punishable with death are imprisonment for life or fine or both.
7. Leaned Addl. SPP has submitted his arguments that both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law. Absolutely, there re no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgments and sought for dismissal of revision petition.
8. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments that, the concurrent finding of both the Courts below shall not be interfered with normally, unless injustice is caused to the parties and an error committed by the Appellate Court can be rectified in revision under provisions under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
9. Keeping in mind the above said principles, I have gone through the materials placed by the prosecution. In support o the case of the prosecution, in all 13 witnesses have been examined. Out of them, PW1 is an eye witness and also the complainant. He has clearly deposed that when he was coming 6 by a tractor, near Sarswati Nagar of Togunshi village, in a down gradient road as the accused drove the tractor in a high speed and the hook of the trailer got released and tractor capsized. On account of it, he and others traveling in the tractor got struck inside the stones. His testimony is in conformity with the contents of Ex.P.1. PWs.7 and 9 inmates of the tractor have given similar evidence. PW.11 Sub-Inspector of Police deposed in his evidence as to the part of investigation. The Main argument submitted by the petitioners counsel is that the accident occurred only because of hook attached to tractor and trailer was broken. In this regard, the Appellate Court has assigned reasons that if the accused was not rash and negligent, the hook would not have got broken down and paved way to the accident. Apart from this, the accused being driver of tractor and trailer ought to have taken precautionary measures while driving the tractor and trailer in down gradient road instead of that the accused has violated the relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also Motor Vehicle rules. The accused should not carry any passenger in loaded trailer. But the driver has violated the relevant rules and accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the accused. On careful examination of the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion 7 that both Courts have property appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective manner. The Judgment and order of conviction for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act does not call for any interference.
10. With regard to the modification of sentence is concerned the alleged offence is punishable under Section 279 is punishable with imprisonment for six months or fine of Rs.1,000/- or with both. The offence is punishable under Section 338 is punishable with imprisonment for two years or find of Rs.1,000/- or both. It is admitted fact that at the time of commission of offence, the age of the accused was 40 years and he has not convicted for any offence prior to this incident. The accused is driver by profession and is having wife and children and he is permanent resident of Kotehal, Guledgudda, Badami taluk, Bagalkot district. Taking into consideration of the nature and gravity of offence, the mitigating circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to modify the sentence. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed.8
The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami in CC No.121/2008 dated 04.12.2010 and judgment passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in Crl.A.No.109/2010 dated 30.09.2013 are confirmed.
The accused shall pay a fine of Rs.500/- for commission of offence under Section 279 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Accused shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the commission of offence under Section 338 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The accused shall pay a fine of Rs.500/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 187 of MV act. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
Accordingly, sentence is modified.
Fine amount deposited by the accused shall be remitted to the Government.
Send back the trial courts records along with copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE HMB