Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23500 (KAR)

SRI. SUNIL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.RP/1046/2019 · 2025-01-24

H P Sandesh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3085 CRL.RP No. 1046 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1046 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SUNIL, S/O RAMASWAMYGOWDA @ RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.24, 2ND MAIN, 4TH CROSS, GOVINDARAJANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040. PERMANENT ADDRESS AT: HOUSE NO.77, KURIMANDI, MYSURU-560 007. ALSO AT: NO.80/10/1, 2ND MAIN, GOVINDARAJANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KADUR POLICE, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3085 CRL.RP No. 1046 of 2019 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.18/2017 ORDER DATED 21.06.2019 BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMGALURU AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.1030/2012 ORDER DATED 05.01.2017 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State. The records are also secured. Hence, with the consent of both the learned counsel heard the matter on merits. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution while invoking the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC against the accused, it is alleged that on 05.04.2012, the complainant driver of the KSRTC bus drove the bus from Sirsi to Mangalore and the driver of the car i.e., the petitioner herein came to Kadur at 1.30 a.m. and on 06.04.2012 on NH-206 drove the car in a rash and negligent manner near Pragna School and dashed to the right portion of the bus even though the driver of the bus took the bus to the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3085 CRL.RP No. 1046 of 2019 extreme left side of the road noticing the car was driven in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, one of the inmates of the car succumbed to the injuries and the driver of the car also sustained injuries and the injured persons were shifted to the hospital. The police registered the case against the petitioner and investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. The petitioner was summoned and he did not plead guilty and hence trial was conducted and the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 19(a). The petitioner was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and not led any defence evidence. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of the eye-witnesses, seizure mahazar witnesses and the prosecution witnesses, accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC for three months and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in respect of Section 338 of IPC, imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- with three months simple imprisonment and in respect of Section 304A of IPC, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/-. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3085 CRL.RP No. 1046 of 2019 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed in Crl.A.No.18/2017 and the Appellate Court on re- appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts committed an error in appreciating the evidence available on record and relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 who are the interested witnesses to the case of the prosecution that they are the driver and conductor of the KSRTC bus. The learned counsel contend that P.W.5 though being an injured and inmate of the car has not supported the case of the prosecution and hence the Trial Court committed an error. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to analyze how the accident occurred. Ex.P.18 sketch clearly shows that the accident was taken place on NH-206, which is a narrow road with width of 24 feet and both the Courts failed to consider the material on record - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3085 CRL.RP No. 1046 of 2019 and hence it requires interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction and the impugned order suffers from its legality and correctness. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State would contend that P.W.1 and P.W.3 are the driver and conductor of the bus. The evidence of P.W.1 is clear that having noticed the manner in which the petitioner drove the vehicle, he took the bus to the extreme left side of the road, but the petitioner came and dashed against the parked bus. As a result, one of the inmates of the car died and the petitioner also sustained injuries and another inmate P.W.5 sustained injuries. Ex.P.18 clearly depicts that this revision petitioner went on the wrong side and dashed against the right portion of the bus. The photographs which are placed on record clearly indicate the manner in which the petitioner went and dashed against the bus and the front portion of the car was clearly damaged. Hence, both the Courts have not committed any error and there are no perversity in the findings of the Trial Court and hence the question of invoking the revisional jurisdiction does not arise. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3085 CRL.RP No. 1046 of 2019 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State and also having perused the material on record i.e., lower Court records, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court and the Appellate Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner and confirming the order of the Trial Court both in respect of conviction and sentence and whether it requires interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction regarding the legality and correctness of the order? (ii) What order? 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective partition, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that P.W.1 and P.W.3 are the interested witnesses. It is not in dispute that P.W.1 and P.W.3 are the driver and conductor of the bus. Having perused the evidence of P.W.1, he categorically deposes that having noticed the petitioner driving the vehicle in a rash and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3085 CRL.RP No. 1046 of 2019 negligent manner and when he was coming on the wrong side, he took the bus on the extreme left side of the road. The photographs which are marked before the Trial Court clearly discloses that the bus was on the extreme left side of the road and the accident spot is on the edge of the road. The fact that this petitioner was moving in the opposite direction of the bus is also not in dispute. The photographs Exs.P.3 and 4 also clearly discloses that front portion of the car was completely damaged and it clearly depicts the place of the accident. Apart from that, sketch Ex.P.18 clearly indicates the place of accident and the same corroborates with the photograph Exs.P.3 and 4. Merely because P.W.1 and P.W.3 are the driver and the conductor of the bus, their evidence cannot be disbelieved. No doubt, P.W.5 turned hostile and he is an inmate of the car. The fact is that he also sustained injury, but he says that at the time of the accident he was sleeping and when he woke he witnessed the accident and given the evidence before the Trial Court regarding the manner in which the accident took place and it is a case of res ipsa loquitur and the things itself speaks about the manner in which the accident was taken place. When such being the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3085 CRL.RP No. 1046 of 2019 case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. The Appellate Court also having considered the material on record, re-appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and reasons are also given that due to negligence of the accused, a person lost his life who was an inmate of the car and others including the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident. The fact that P.W.5 was in the hospital for a period of ten days is not in dispute and his daughter and wife also sustained injuries. All of them took treatment for about two months in the hospital and the gravity of the offence is also taken note of. The fact that it is an accident also is not in dispute. The material available on record is discussed in detail by the Trial Court and hence I do not find any perversity in the finding of the Trial Court as well as confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court. Hence, it does not require interference of this Court with regard to conviction is concerned. 9. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 279 as well as Section 304A of IPC and when the offence under Section 304A of IPC - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3085 CRL.RP No. 1046 of 2019 is invoked, the Trial Court ought not to have considered Section 279 of IPC. Section 279 of IPC merges with the ingredients of Section 304A of IPC. Hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC requires interference. However, taking note of invoking of the offence under Section 338 of IPC is concerned, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court since the injured persons have taken the treatment and P.W.5 deposed before the Court that he had sustained grievous injuries and he was an inpatient for a period of ten days and hence it does not require interference of this Court. 10. Having taken note of the factual aspects of the case, the accident occurred at 1.45 a.m. and this accident was taken place in 2012, almost more than a decade ago and one person lost his life. The Apex Court has held that in a case of Section 304A of IPC, the Court has to take note of the gravity of the offence and the punishment should also commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Having considered the factual aspects of the case that the accident occurred in the midnight and considering the principle of res ipsa loquitur, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence from - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3085 CRL.RP No. 1046 of 2019 one year to six months. Hence, I answer the point for consideration partly in the affirmative. 11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC is set aside and no interference with regard to the conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 338 and 304A of IPC. The sentence of one year is reduced to six months. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29