Allowed

Ramangouda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2013CRL.RP/2145/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal revision petition filed by a bus driver convicted of dangerous driving and rash driving. The High Court set aside the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence, holding that the lower courts misinterpreted the evidence regarding oncoming vehicles and darkness, and ordered a refund of the fine.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the Trial Court and Appellate Court are set aside, and the fine amount in deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.

Ramangouda Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.2145 OF 2010

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Ramangouda, S/o. Rayappa Patil, Aged 58 years, Occupation: Driver, Resident of Mudalgi, Taluk: Gokak, District: Belgaum. …PETITIONER (By Shri Harish S. Maigur, Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

The State of Karnataka, By Haveri Town Police, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Dharwad-560 001. …RESPONDENT (By Shri V.M. Banakar, Additional State Public Prosecutor) ---

¶11

¶12

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4.3.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Haveri, in Criminal Appeal No.1/2007 thereby dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 8.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Haveri in C.C.No.383/2004, thereby convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/-.

¶13

This Petition coming on for hearing, this day, the Court made the following:

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

¶16

The petitioner was the accused in the following background:

¶17

It was alleged that on 14.4.2004 at about 4.15 a.m., the accused who was the driver of a bus belonging to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bearing No.KA-22 F-1316 was driving the bus from Belgaum to Bangalore and it was near

¶18

¶19

Haveri when it is alleged that he was driving the bus at speed and having lost control, had hit a tamarind tree on the right side of the road and thereafter had moved towards the left side of the road and hit an electric pole before going over the road and crashing into the compound wall of the house of one Subhash Kamath and coming to rest after entering his compound. It is on the above allegations that a case had been registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.', for brevity). The petitioner having been charge-sheeted and subsequently having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the court below after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) and after hearing both the sides, had framed the following points for consideration:

¶20

¶21

“1) Whether the prosecution proves the accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 427 of IPC?

¶22

What order”

¶23

The Trial Court held the same in the affirmative and had sentenced the petitioner to pay fine in a sum of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC and Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC. It is that which was challenged in appeal and the Appellate Court having affirmed the conviction, the present petition is filed.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the reasoning of the court below is erroneous and does not address the circumstances and the facts evident from the record, in the correct perspective and that has resulted in the petitioner being punished even though there was ample evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner was not at fault and it is in order

¶25

¶26

to avoid a greater damage and injury that he was compelled to take the bus off the road and the resultant damage was inevitable. In this regard, the learned counsel would take this court through the record and would submit that from the evidence on record, the court below having misinterpreted the same and having convicted the accused, would require this court to interfere in revision notwithstanding that there are concurrent findings of fact by both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The learned counsel would draw attention to the manner in which the prosecution has alleged that the accident had occurred. Though the consistent evidence of all the witnesses was to the effect that the vehicle was proceeding from Belgaum towards Bangalore and while at Haveri, there was an oncoming lorry and there was another bus overtaking the lorry and therefore, since the present petitioner was driving the bus at a high speed, he was not able to control the bus and it had hit a tamarind tree on the right side of the road and then moved across the road to the left and hit the electric pole and

¶27

¶28

thereafter went off the road and crashed into the compound was of one Subhash Kamath. This, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out, is accepted by the court below and it is the very scene which is sought to be reflected in Exhibit P-20, the sketch and spot mahazar.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that it is almost impossible if the bus was moving at high speed and if there were two oncoming heavy vehicles, to go to the right side of the road, hit the tamarind tree, then move diagonally across the road to the left side and then go off the road, cannot be the sequence of events as sought to be narrated by the prosecution. The more probable explanation which has been given by PW-10, which the court below has held was an admission, as also affirmed was the only statement which appear to support the case of the petitioner that the time of the accident was being early in the morning and since there was darkness, the oncoming vehicles were coming with their

¶30

¶31

highway beams, which had blinded the petitioner and therefore, he had to move off the road in order to avoid a head-on collision. However, the court below has proceeded to hold that the width of the road was 30 feet and was wide enough to accommodate three heavy vehicles and the presumption that the petitioner was moving at a moderate speed was in a position to move to the extreme left side of the road and to the shoulder, namely the unmetalled portion of the road measuring about 5 feet wide and could have stopped, thereby allowing the oncoming vehicles, one of which was overtaking the other, to pass. Thus, the court below has proceeded to hold as if it was broad daylight and the petitioner was in a position to maneuver the bus in the manner that he wanted, notwithstanding that there were two heavy vehicles with their headlights on, one trying to overtake the other. The measurement of the road is not very relevant when it is not possible to gauge the distance between the vehicles and the existence or otherwise of a smooth and navigable surface on the left side of the road when the driver is

¶32

¶33

completely blinded by the oncoming headlights. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the presumptions on which the court below has proceeded merely on the measurement of the road and prosecution case as narrated by the several witnesses, has been mechanically accepted without addressing the realities of the situation and hence, the learned counsel would submit that notwithstanding the settled principle that there is little scope for intervention in revision as against the concurrent findings of fact when the evidence on record is overlooked or misinterpreted, it cannot be said that this court in its revisional power is not in a position to interfere, to avoid miscarriage of justice.

¶34

The learned counsel would also point out that the court below was not wholly satisfied of the case of the prosecution, which is the reason why the punishment only by way of fine is imposed though the several sections that are invoked also attracted the punishment of imprisonment and hence, he would

¶35

¶36

submit that even the punishment of fine results in the petitioner losing his employment as the employer is a State Government undertaking and therefore would submit that the consequence of the punishment imposed is much greater than it seems and therefore, seeks the intervention of this court.

¶37

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor on the other hand would seek to justify the judgment.

¶38

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the sketch indicating the spot of the accident and the manner in which the bus is said to have moved, is not capable of being understood easily. The bus having hit a tamarind tree on the right side and then having moved to the left and at the same time also to imagine that there were two oncoming heavy vehicles which the petitioner was seeking to avoid, would not explain the manner in which he has moved to the right side and then to the left. If the several witnesses have endorsed that there were two oncoming vehicles, several witnesses being

¶39

¶40

awake and keenly watching the road at the time of the accident, cannot also be readily accepted, as it was 4.00 a.m. in the morning and they were apparently travelling from Belgaum to Bangalore and it could not be imaginable that they were all wide awake and were in a position to view the manner in which the accident had occurred. On the other hand, PW-10 who was also an occupant of the bus having consistently held in line with the defence set up by the petitioner, cannot be overlooked. The Trial Court having taken notice of the statements made by PW10, however has chosen to ignore the same. Therefore, in the light of the sketch which does not explain actually the manner in which the accident had occurred and PW-10 endorsing the defence set up by the petitioner that there were two heavy vehicles which were blocking the path of the bus and therefore, it was inevitable that the bus having been driven off the road, would have to be accepted.

¶41

¶42

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The judgment of

¶43

the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are set aside. The fine amount in deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.

¶44

��

¶45

Ramangouda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramangouda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Shankar Ramachandra Vs the State of Karnataka

The State by the Inspector of Police Vs Basir Ahmedkhan @ Saradar Ahmedkhan

Sri.Anand Rupasing Nayak, Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath Nehru Olekar S/O Nehru C Olekar Vs Erappa M Lamani S/O Mangalappa

Mustaq S/O Mainuddin Fultambe Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramappa Basaragi S/O Basaling Basaragi Vs State of Karnataka