Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30253 (KAR)

M.C.NANJUNDASWAMY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.RP/1345/2016 · 2025-02-06

H P Sandesh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5468 CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1345 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. M.C.NANJUNDASWAMY, S/O CHANNABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RETIRED KSRTC DRIVER, R/AT 5014, II STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA, MYSURU–570 004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.N.RADHA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JAYAPURA POLICE, MYSURU, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.07.2014 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. J.M.F.C., MYSURU IN C.C.NO.595/2011 AND CONFIRMED AND MODIFIED DATED 16.09.2016 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.167/2014 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5468 CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State. 2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and confirmation by the Appellate Court convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months sentence and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In respect of Section 338 of IPC, one year sentence and Rs.500/- fine was imposed and in respect of Section 304(A) of IPC, two years sentence and fine of Rs.500/- was imposed. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, Criminal Appeal No.167/2014 was filed and the same was allowed in part confirming the conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. The sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC was set aside and the sentence imposed - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5468 CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2016 for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC was reduced to one year. The fine imposed for the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC was confirmed and default sentence of three months is imposed. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court committed an error in accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5. The learned counsel contend that both the Courts failed to consider the admission given by the injured pillow rider of the motorcycle P.W.2 and so also P.W.1, who stated that the bus dashed against the right side of the motorcycle and towards the left side of the motorcycle there was a lot of space. This sole circumstance clearly discloses that it is the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle that even though there was space on the left side of the road, he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The learned counsel contend that P.W.4 has turned hostile and the observation of the Trial Court is that P.W.5 is an independent witness to the accident along with injured - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5468 CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2016 P.W.2, but P.W.5 in his chief he says that road was very wide at the accident place and further he admits that he could not say the bus hit which part of the bike. The conduct of P.W.5 is unnatural as he did not make any effort to shift the injured to the hospital. P.W.6 is the conductor of the bus. The Trial Court fails to take note of the sketch Ex.P.13, which clearly discloses that there was space of about 4 feet on the left side of the motorcyclist and the same has not been properly appreciated and hence it requires interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State would contend that the bus came in opposite direction and that too on the wrong side on the extreme right side of the road and the injured witness P.W.2 deposed the manner in which the bus came and dashed against the motorcycle. P.W.5 is an eye- witness to the accident. Having taking note of Ex.P.13, it is clear that it depicts the place of the accident and the bus went on the wrong side and dashed against the motorcyclists, who were coming on the left side of the road. Hence, this Court cannot find fault with the findings of both the Courts. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5468 CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2016 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State and also taking note of the material available on record, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether both the Courts committed an error in convicting and sentencing and confirming the same and whether it requires interference of this Court exercising the revisional jurisdiction and whether both the order suffers from its legality and correctness? (ii) What order? Point No.(i): 8. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the respective parties and particularly the document of Ex.P.13, it clearly discloses that the bus went on the wrong side of the road and also on the extreme right side of the road and the motorcyclist came in the proper direction on the left side of the road. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was 4 feet space on the left side of the motorcyclist and the said contention cannot be - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5468 CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2016 accepted for the reason that the bus was proceeding from H.D. Kote towards Mysore and the motorcyclist was coming from Mysore to H.D.Kote and on the extreme right side of the road, the accident was occurred. Mere 4 feet space on the left side of the motorcycle cannot be a ground to come to the conclusion that the accident was occurred on account of negligence on the part of the motorcyclist. It is important to note that there is no explanation with regard to what made the driver of the bus to take the bus to the extreme right side of the road in his 313 statement and also not led any defence evidence. The injured eye-witness P.W.2 deposed the manner in which the bus was driven. P.W.3 is not an eye- witness and he categorically says that he came to know that the bus came on the right side of the road and dashed against the motorcyclist. Hence, P.W.3 cannot be treated as an eye- witness. P.W.2, who was a pillion rider categorically says that the bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle and the rider of the motorcycle died at the spot and he had sustained injuries and he gave the statement before the police. In the cross-examination, even the defence also elicited that the bus came on the right side - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5468 CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2016 and dashed against the motorcycle. P.W.2 says that space was there on the left side of the motorcycle, but the same cannot be a ground when the driver of the bus went on the extreme right side of the road and dashed against him. P.W.2 categorically says that on account of the impact of dashing against the motorcycle, both of them fell on the left side of the road. 9. P.W.5 also speaks about the vehicle moving in the opposite direction and the bus driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcyclist. He also categorically says that on the left side of the bus even other bus also can move and that much space was there on the road. In the cross-examination of this witness, he categorically says that he saw the accident at a distance of 150 feet, but he cannot say to which part the bus dashed against the motorcycle, but he can say that the bus dashed against the motorcycle. 10. Having taken note of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5, their evidence is consistent. Apart from that, the documentary evidence of Ex.P.13 sketch depicts the place of the accident and when the driver of the bus went and dashed - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5468 CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2016 against the motorcycle on the extreme right side of the road, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court in appreciating the evidence on record. There is no perversity in the findings of both the Courts. It is important to note that though the Trial Court convicted and imposed the sentence for all the offences, the sentence of two years is reduced to one year in the Appellate Court. The accident was taken place in 2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 70 years and at the time of filing the revision petition, his age is shown as 61. Taking note of the factual aspects of the case that it is an accident and also considering the age of the petitioner and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is suffering from heart ailment and when such being the case, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence from one year to six months with fine of Rs.50,000/- as against Rs.1,500/-. Out of Rs.50,000/-, an amount of Rs.40,000/- is payable to the parents of the deceased, if any, alive. If no parents, the same is payable to P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased, on proper identification. The remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall vest with the State. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5468 CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2016 The conviction and sentence in respect of Section 279 of IPC is set aside since the ingredients of offence under Section 279 of IPC merges with the severe offence of Section 304(A) of IPC. Point No.(ii): 11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) The sentence is reduced to six months from one year with fine of Rs.50,000/- as against Rs.1,500/-. (iii) Out of Rs.50,000/-, an amount of Rs.40,000/- is payable to the parents of the deceased, if any alive. If no parents, the same is payable to P.W.1, brother of the deceased, on proper identification. Remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall vest with the State. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46