Allowed

Siddanna v. State by C P I

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2020CRL.RP/1131/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court acquitted the petitioner of charges for rash and negligent driving causing death. The court set aside conviction and sentence, ruling that the police sketch showed the other vehicle was parked on the main road, shifting liability away from the driver who was following traffic norms under the circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgments and orders of conviction and sentence are set aside; the petitioner is acquitted of the charges.

Siddanna Vs State by C P I — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.R.P.No.1131/2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1131/2011

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SIDDANNA S/O. M.BOMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS DRIVER R/AT KOMMANAHATTI VILLAGE MOLAKALMUR TALUK …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI M.R.HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE BY C.P.I CHALLAKERE CIRCLE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 560 001 … RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C., MOLAKALMURU IN C.C.NO.83/2010 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.10.2011 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN CRL.A.NO.62/2011.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.R.P.No.1131/2011

O R D E R

Aggrieved by the orders of conviction and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC, the petitioner has preferred the above revision petition.

¶20

The petitioner was accused No.1 in C.C.No.83/2010 on the file of the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Molakalmuru. Accused No.2 was one Parameshwarappa S/o. Shivappa driver of the lorry bearing KA-16-A-9342. On the basis of the charge sheet filed by Thalaku police in Crime No.153/2009, the petitioner and accused No.2 were prosecuted in C.C.No.83/2010 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and Section 8 read with Section 18 of the Karnataka Traffic Control Act, 1960.

¶21

The case of the prosecution in brief was as follows:

¶22

On 20.09.2009, at 7.45 p.m. on State Highway No.19 between Bellary and Challakere near

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.1131/2011

¶24

¶25

Giriyammanahally, lorry bearing No. KA-16-A-9342 was parked by accused No.2 without putting on the parking lights. The petitioner drove his Tempo Trax No.KA-16-A-3741 in rash and negligent manner and hit the stationery lorry from the hind side and caused the accident. In the accident, PWs.1 to 3, 6 to 8 suffered injuries and one Prabhakar Rao son of Pranesh Rao died. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent act/driving by accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶26

Regarding the accident, PW.1 filed the complaint as per Ex.P1 before PW.9. On the basis of complaint PW.9 registered the first information report as per Ex.P17 against both the accused and handed over the investigation to PW.10. PW.10 conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 in the presence of PWs.4 and 5. During spot mahazar, he prepared the sketch of the scene of offence as per Ex.P18. He recorded the statement of the witnesses, collected the Motor vehicle Inspector’s report, injury certificate, seized the vehicle and filed the charge sheet.

¶27

Crl.R.P.No.1131/2011

¶28

¶29

The trial Court on taking cognizance of the offences, summoned both the accused and tried them. On trial, after hearing the parties, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC and sentenced him to fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC and Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC and simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC with default sentence clause. The trial Court acquitted accused No.2 for the offence under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the Karnataka Traffic Control Rules, 1960 on the following grounds:

¶30

(i) The charge under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC applies only in case of driving of the vehicle and not stationary vehicle. Admittedly, accused No.2 had parked the vehicle, so he was not driving the vehicle, therefore, he was not liable for conviction for the said offences; &

¶31

Crl.R.P.No.1131/2011

¶32

¶33

(ii) The evidence of the injured eyewitnesses PWs.1 to 3, 6 to 8 is cogent and consistent with regard to high speed, rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. The evidence of the eyewitnesses is corroborated by the other official witnesses i.e. Motor Vehicle Inspector and the Investigating Officers.

¶34

The petitioner challenged the judgment and order of sentence of the trial Court before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in

¶35

Crl.A.No.62/2011.

¶36

The First Appellate Court by the impugned judgment and order dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court on the ground that though the other vehicle was stationary vehicle, since as per the eyewitnesses at the time of accident, it was raining and there was heavy breeze, the petitioner was expected to move slowly. But as per the eyewitnesses version he was driving the vehicle at speed of 50-60 kms per hour.

¶37

Crl.R.P.No.1131/2011

¶38

¶39

Sri M.R.Hiremathad, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to assail the impugned orders of conviction and sentence on the following grounds:

¶40

(i) As per the prosecution case itself, accused No.2 had parked the lorry on the public road without putting on the parking lights;

¶41

(ii) To constitute an offence under Section 279 of IPC, driving of the vehicle in high speed is not sufficient, but driving should be in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life;

¶42

(iii) Out of the alleged eyewitnesses, only PWs.3 and 7 in their chief examination state that the petitioner was negligent in driving and others did not speak of any negligence in driving. PWs.3 and 7 also in the cross-examination admitted that they did not actually witness the incident, since PW.3 was asleep and PW.7 was positioned in the last seat of the Tata Sumo. According to PW.3, he learnt about the incident, when he woke up from sleep;

¶43

(iv) Even as per the eyewitnesses version, the petitioner was driving the vehicle in speed of 50-60 kms

¶44

Crl.R.P.No.1131/2011

¶45

¶46

per hour that too in highway, therefore, it cannot be said that he was driving in high speed, rashly and negligently;

¶47

(v) The accident occurred due to the negligence

¶48

on the part of accused No.2; &

¶49

(vi) As per the sketch of the scene of offence,

¶50

the lorry was parked on the public road.

¶51

Per contra, Sri H.R.Showri, learned HCGP seeks to support the impugned orders of the Courts below on the following grounds:

¶52

(i) The evidence of the injured eyewitnesses i.e. PWs.1 to 3, 6 to 8 is cogent and consistent. Therefore, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court is justified in convicting and sentencing the petitioner;

¶53

(ii) Since there are concurrent findings of the trial Court and First Appellate Court on appreciation and re-appreciation of the witnesses, this Court in the revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the said findings.

¶54

Crl.R.P.No.1131/2011

¶55

¶56

As per the prosecution records themselves, accused No.2 had parked his lorry on the road without putting on the parking lights/indicators. Ex.P18 the sketch of the scene of offence the prosecution’s own record shows that the lorry was parked on the highway and not on the edge of the road or mud road. Ex.P18 shows that tar road was 32 feet wide and after that there was four feet mud road on either side of the tar road. Ex.P18 further shows that the lorry of accused No.2 was positioned on the tar road only.

¶57

The trial Court and the First Appellate Court passed conviction on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 to 8 the alleged injured eyewitnesses. As rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner to constitute an offence under Section 279 of IPC, high speed alone is not sufficient. There should be rashness and negligence on the part of the driver in driving the vehicle so as to endanger the human life. The other charges sustain only if the offence under Section 279 of IPC is proved.

¶58

Crl.R.P.No.1131/2011

¶59

¶60

Out of PWs.1 to 3, 6 to 8, PWs.1, 2, 6 & 8 did not speak about rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. PWs.3 and 7 in their chief examination state that the petitioner was driving the lorry in high speed and negligently. They did not even speak of rashness. PW.1 states that the petitioner was driving the Tata Sumo vehicle at the speed of 50-60 kms per hour. The other witnesses did not speak about the speed.

¶61

Admittedly, the spot of the accident was highway and there was no town limit or city limit to regulate the speed of the vehicle below 50 kms. The witnesses admit that the time of the accident was 7.45 p.m. which is apparently dark time. In addition to that, as admitted by PWs.6 and 7, at the time of the accident, there were heavy rains and strong winds and lorry parked was not visible. Despite such evidence, the Courts below attributed rashness and negligence to the petitioner. The prosecution documents and the evidence of the prosecution’s own witnesses show that the

¶62

Crl.R.P.No.1131/2011

¶63

¶64

accident occurred due to unwise parking of the lorry by accused No.2 on public road.

¶65

Since the trial Court acquitted accused No.2 taking highly technical view that the driving cannot be attributed to the driver of the parked vehicle, rashness and negligence were shifted to the petitioner without appreciating the aforesaid facts and circumstances more particularly, the sketch of the scene of offence.

¶66

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla¹ held that where the parties rely upon one part of a document, the Court can look into the other part of the document irrespective of the fact that whether the contents of the documents have been proved or not. In the case on hand also, Ex.P18 and the prosecution’s own document showed that accused had parked the lorry on the main road which lead to accident. Therefore, in convicting the petitioner the trial Court and the First Appellate Court were not justified in relying only on one part of the

¶67

1 2017 (13) SCC 476

¶68

Crl.R.P.No.1131/2011

¶69

¶70

prosecution evidence and ignoring the other part of the evidence which was leaning in his favour.

¶71

The judgment of the trial Court and the First

¶72

Appellate Court are contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Premlata Shukla’s case and the material on record. That has led to miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the petition is allowed.

¶73

The impugned judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court are hereby set aside.

¶74

The petitioner is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. Rest of the order is maintained. Fine amount deposited, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner.

¶75

Since the matter itself is disposed of, further consideration of police report does not arise. The cost paid is accepted and NBW issued against the petitioner does not survive for consideration.

¶76

KSR

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

Siddanna v. State by C P I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddanna v. State by C P I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka Vs Halalingaiah

Smt M R Vimala W/O Sri Jayaram Vs the State by Sheshadripuram Police Station

Smt M R Vimala Vs the State by Sheshadripuram Police Station

Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Manju Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

Satheesha @ D.G.Nataraj Vs Smt M R Kamala