Dismissed

Kutubuddin S/O Dastagirsab Hulkund v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2018CRL.RP/100271/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition challenging a conviction and sentence in a fatal motor accident case. The court found the evidence of the complainant and injured witness sufficient to prove rash and negligent driving, noting no mechanical defect caused the accident.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; Conviction and sentence confirmed.

Kutubuddin S/O Dastagirsab Hulkund Vs the State of… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRL. R. P. NO.100271 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KUTUBUDDIN S/O DASTAGIRSAB HULKUND AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: GALAGALI, TQ: BEELGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶8

... PETITIONER (BY SRI. VYAS DESAI, FOR SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVS.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPREPSENTED BY THE SPP, THROUGH KATKOL POLICE STATION, HIGH COURT BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. A.R. RODRIGUES, AGA)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRL. A. NO. 219 OF 2012 DATED 25.02.2015 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO. 293 OF 2010 DATED

¶14

¶15

20.11.2012, PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMDURG AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, wherein he was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC and Section 134 read with Sections 187 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the Trial Court in CC No.293/2010 vide order dated 20.11.2012, which was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.A. No.219/2012.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶19

the petitioner and the learned AGA appearing for the respondent-State.

¶20

The case of the prosecution in brief is, that on 17.07.2010 at about 22.15 hours, on Bagalkote-Belagaum road, near Bijaguppi cross,

¶21

¶22

the accused being the driver of the Tractor bearing No.KA-29-T/9031 attached with three trailers bearing Nos.KA-29-T/9032, 9033 and KA-29T/1613, drove the same in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, on the public way and jumped the speed breakers laid near Bijaguppi cross, resulting in separation of two trailers from the tractor and separated trailers dashed to the complainant’s son

¶23

by name Hajirumi Abdul Razak and also CW6(PW4), who was standing by the side of the parked truck on the right side of the road and in that process, CW6(PW4) sustained simple injuries and the complainant’s son sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

¶24

The accused was charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences and the trial Court recorded the plea of accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶25

¶26

In order to establish the case, the

¶27

prosecution got examined PW1 to PW7 and marked documents as per Exs.P1 to P18. The Trial Court considering the evidence and material on record convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and passed the sentence as under:

¶28

For the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC, the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to pay fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

¶29

For the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

¶30

For the offence punishable under Section 134 read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to pay fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days.

¶31

For the offence punishable under Section 146 read with Section 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, the

¶32

¶33

accused was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

¶34

Appeal preferred by the accused was

¶35

dismissed by the 3^rd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi by judgment and order dated 25.02.2015, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the

¶37

prosecution has failed to secure the inquest and spot mahazar witnesses and hence, failed to prove the spot of the incident. He contended that the incident took place at around 10.15 p.m. therefore, PW1 and PW2 could not have identified the accused in the dark as the person driving the tractor in question. He further contended that PW1 is an interested witness and other witnesses viz. PW2 and PW3 have turned hostile, therefore,

¶38

¶39

order of conviction ought not to have been passed solely on the evidence of PW1 and PW4. Therefore, he submitted that the prosecution has not proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and both the Courts below have erred in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused.

¶40

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the respondent-State supporting the judgment passed by the Courts below contended that PW1 and PW4 are the witnesses who spoke about the incident in question and nothing is elicited in their crossexamination to discard their evidence. He submitted that there are sufficient oral and documentary evidence proving the guilt of the accused. The Courts below have passed the judgment by giving reasons which does not call for interference by this Court. Therefore, he submits that revision petition may be dismissed.

¶41

¶42

That, it is the case of the prosecution that

¶43

the accused was driving the tractor, to which three trailers were attached, in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed, on BagalkoteBelagaum road, and jumped the speed breakers near Bijaguppi cross, in view of the same, two trailers from the Tractor got separated and it dashed against the complainant’s son and also CW6(PW4) resulting in the death of complainant’s son and PW4 sustained injuries. It is not disputed that the said tractor was attached with three trailers. PW1, who is the complainant, has categorically stated that the tractor came in a high speed without slowing down where the speed breakers were put, on account of that, 2^nd and 3^rd trailers separated from the tractor and came to the right side of the road and dashed against his son. He has further stated that he saw the driver of the tractor and he also identified the accused as the said person. He has also deposed that the

¶44

¶45

said accused ran away from the spot. He has denied the suggestions that he has not seen the driver and the accused. PW4, who is another witness and an injured, has corroborated the evidence of PW1. He has also identified the accused as the person who was driving the tractor. It is no doubt true that in the cross-examination, it is elicited that there was no electric light at the place of incident, however, he deposed that when the tractor jumped the speed breaker, he saw the driver.

¶46

Looking at the sketch at Ex.P18, the

¶47

same goes to show that the truck was parked on the left side of the road and two trailers attached to the tractor had jumped and crossed the road and it is spotted on the wrong side of the road. Two other witnesses viz. PW2 and PW3 have not supported the case of the prosecution, however, from the evidence of the PW1 and PW4, it can be

¶48

¶49

clearly gathered that it is on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused, accident took place. It is also apparent from the records that after the accident, the accused ran away from the spot without providing any medical assistance to the injured nor reporting the matter to the police. The Trial Court having appreciated the entire evidence and material on record and after giving reasons came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the aforesaid offences. The appellate Court having re-appreciated the evidence has rightly confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court. The appellate Court has also taken into consideration the evidence of PW8-MVI Inspector and the report Ex.P16 issued by him stating that there is no mechanical defect which caused the accident. Considering the impugned judgment and orders passed by the Courts below, I see no illegality in the said orders so as to interfere in this revision

¶50

¶51

petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

¶52

following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

Criminal revision petition is dismissed.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

JTR

Kutubuddin S/O Dastagirsab Hulkund v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kutubuddin S/O Dastagirsab Hulkund 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

Gangamma @ Lalith W/O Manjappa Ganiger Vs State of Karnataka

Angadi Parvathamma W/O Late Shankrappa Vs State of Karnataka

Angadi Shankramma W/O Andanappa Vs State of Karnataka

Poojar H. Giriyappa S/O Durugappa Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

B S Patil Vs Mallappa S/O Shivappa Chalwadi

Balasaheb Mahadev Bhivate Vs the State of Karnataka