Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 31347 (KAR)

SRI LAKSHMIKANTHA B P v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.RP/1545/2016 · 2025-02-03

H P Sandesh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5003 CRL.RP No. 1545 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1545 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SRI LAKSHMIKANTHA B P S/O. SRI. PADMANABHA B K, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O NAVILE BASAPURA VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI BALAGANGADHAR G S, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHIMOGA RURAL POLICE CIRCLE, SHIMOGA, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 10.11.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. S.J., SHIMOGA IN CRL.A.NO.20/2015 AND ETC. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5003 CRL.RP No. 1545 of 2016 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.11.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.20/2015 by the First Appellate Court and also the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.01.2015 passed in C.C.No.247/2014 by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 18.07.2013 at about 7.00 p.m., the complainant approached the SHO/PSI – CW18, Shimoga Rural Police Station and lodge the complaint stating that on 18.07.2013 at about 4.30 p.m., the daughter of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5003 CRL.RP No. 1545 of 2016 complainant by name Girija was returning to her house in a school Bus and when she got down from the said school bus and was proceeding towards her house, at that time, the driver of the said school bus moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the daughter of the complainant, due to which the front left wheel of the said bus ran over the head of the said girl resulting in fatal injuries to her and when she was brought to the hospital for treatment the doctor declared as dead. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Trial Court allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P13. On the other hand, petitioner herein has not led any evidence. Having considered the evidence of PW1, PW6 and PW7 who are the eye- witnesses to the incident, the Trial Court convicted the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5003 CRL.RP No. 1545 of 2016 petitioner for the aforesaid offences and order for sentence. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.20/2015 and the First Appellate Court on re- appreciation of material available on record comes to the conclusion that there must be a direct nexus between the death of a person and negligent act of the accused and also held that the accused being a driver of a school bus, must have been exercise due diligence while driving and witnesses have identified this petitioner stating that he only driving the bus on the date of accident and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 5. The counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that PW6 deposed that he was present at a distance of 20 feet from the bus and he could not see what is happening and PW7 also admits that maid was present to give signals in the bus after child alighted from the bus - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5003 CRL.RP No. 1545 of 2016 and when these answers are elicited from the mouth of PW6 and PW7 who are the eye-witnesses, benefit of doubt ought to have given to the petitioner and this material witness evidence has not been considered and the order impugned is suffers from its legality and correctness and this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction. The counsel also submits that even having taken note of the incident also sentence imposed is for one year is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence and offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC ought not to have been invoked and the same merges with of the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. The counsel also would vehemently contend that answer was elicited from the mouth of PW6 and PW7 that maid was there and ought to have been examined her and same is factum of the case of the prosecution. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State would vehemently contend that based on the complaint of PW1, case has been registered and PW6 and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5003 CRL.RP No. 1545 of 2016 PW7 categorically deposed that they have witnessed the accident and immediately rushed to the spot and taken the injured to the hospital and also their evidence is credible and apart from that the very contention of the petitioner that when the answer was elicited from the mouth of PW6 that maid was there in the vehicle and she used to give signal for moving the bus, she has not been examined before the Trial Court and the same cannot be accepted when eye-witnesses evidence are available before the Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perual of material available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: 1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offencs punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC and the First Appellate Court committed an error in confirming the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5003 CRL.RP No. 1545 of 2016 judgment of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court and whether it requires interference of this Court? 2. What order? Point No.1: 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, it discloses that the counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the child aged about five years could not be seen having considered the nature of the vehicle involved in the accident is concerned. Apart from that answer elicited from the mouth of PW6 and PW7 also not credible. It is the case of the prosecution that the child alighted from the bus on the date of accident and also fact that PW6 and PW7 have witnessed the incident and they are the eye-witnesses. No doubt, in the cross-examination of PW6, it is elicited that he was at the distance of 20 feet from the place of accident and he could not see what happens after the road - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5003 CRL.RP No. 1545 of 2016 side and also maid was there in the bus and she normally used to give signal and the said answer whether takes away the case of the prosecution is the moot question with regard to the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. It has to be noted that when the driver made the victim to alight from the bus, he ought to have been waited the child to cross the road and it has to be noted that sketch which is marked as Ex.P3 is clear that the main road which is having twelve feet width, bus was also stopped at the edge of 3rd cross and accident spot clearly depicts in the sketch. When the child alighted from his bus, he would have waited till the child cross the road instead of that he moved the bus and the fact that PW6 and PW7 have witnessed the said accident and merely because maid was there in the bus and she used to give signal in the normal circumstances is not a ground that it is not the fault of the petitioner and whether the maid gave the signal or not has not been spoken by the petitioner before the Trial Court in 313 statement. Apart from that he did not make any statement before the Magistrate that he did not see the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5003 CRL.RP No. 1545 of 2016 child. But the fact that the child was alighted from the bus in which the petitioner was driving the bus and same is not in dispute. When such being the case, he would have waited the child to cross the road to go to her house. The counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that having considered the nature of the bus and not sighted the child at the spot and the said contention cannot be accepted and there is no explanation with regard to the incriminating evidence adduced against him particularly PW6 and PW7 and no explanation in 313 statement and also not led any defence evidence. When such material is available before the Court and mere admission on the part of PW6 band PW7 that maid was there in the bus and generally she used to give signal cannot be a ground to comes to other conclusion. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the pr counsel. 9. On the other hand, the counsel for the State also brought to notice of this Court the sketch which depict the place of accident and evidence of PW6 and PW7 and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5003 CRL.RP No. 1545 of 2016 held that the comes to the conclusion that also cannot expect mathematical niceties in a case of invoking Section 304A of IPC is concerned and hence, I do not find any error in the finding of both Courts in coming to the conclusion that this petitioner had caused the accident and he was also identified by PW6 and PW7 and the petitioner also not disputes the fact that he was not the driver of the vehicle on the date of accident and his only defence is that he did not see the child and same cannot be a ground to interfere in a revisional jurisdiction and this Court has to see that whether order suffers from its legality and correctness and same is not found in the judgment of both the Courts. 10. 10. However, taking into note of the conviction and sentence is concerned, the Trial Court committed an error invoking Section 279 of IPC when the ingredients of Section 279 of IPC merges with Section 304A of IPC and ought not have convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 279 and hence, sentence and - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5003 CRL.RP No. 1545 of 2016 conviction in respect of Section 279 of IPC requires to be set aside. 11. Having considered the material available on record, it is clear that the petitioner was the driver of the bus in which he took the child from the school to the residence of the complainant and an accident was occurred and same is not an intentional act and he was also not noticed that the child is in front of his bus when the child alighted from his bus. Having taken note of said facts into consideration, instead of one year sentence, it is appropriate to reduce to six months. Accordingly, I answer the above point partly in the affirmative. 12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC is set aside and sentence of one year is reduced to six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:5003 CRL.RP No. 1545 of 2016 of IPC and if any fine is imposed and the same is cancelled. The Trial Court is directed to refund the fine amount to the petitioner if deposited in respect of the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN