Partly allowed

Vinayak S/O Dyava Gouda v. the State of Karnataka through Cpi, Sirsi

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2020CRL.RP/2073/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court upheld the conviction of an accused for rash driving causing death under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC but modified the penalty. The judgment was confirmed but the fine was increased and default imprisonment added due to mitigating circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentence modified to include Rs.10,000 fine for Section 304-A IPC and six months default imprisonment.

Vinayak S/O Dyava Gouda Vs the State of Karnataka… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

CRL.RP.NO.2073 OF 2012

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

VINAYAK, S/O DYAVA GOUDA, AGE: 37 YEARS,OCC: DRIVER, R/O KESARKOPPA, KANGOD, TAL: SIRSI, DIST:UTTAR KANNADA.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI RAJENDRA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH CPI, SIRSI, NOW REP. BY SPP.

¶13

... RESPONDENT ***

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 03.01.2012 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR IN CRL. A. NO.56/2011 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JMFC, SIRSI IN CC NO.22/2010 DATED 26.02.2011 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER, ETC.,

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This revision petition is preferred by the

¶19

Accused being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Prl. JMFC, Sirsi in CC No.22/2010 dated 26.02.2011 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A IPC read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicle Act, which is confirmed by the District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, in Crl. A. No.56/2011 on 03.01.2012.

¶20

Parties herein shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

¶21

Brief facts leading to this case are as

¶22

under:

¶23

It is the case of prosecution that on 06.06.2010 at about 11.45am accused being the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-31/1851, drove the same from Ramanataggu, Sirsi to Banavasi road in a

¶24

¶25

rash and negligent manner and endangering human life and public safety and dashed against the cyclist by name Suresh Nagendra Netrekar, who was coming from the opposite direction and caused accident. Due to which said Suresh Nagendra Netrekar sustained grievous injuries and he died at the hospital. Immediately after accident, without providing any help or treatment to the deceased or providing information to the nearest Police Station, accused ran away from the spot.

¶26

Thereafter complaint came to be

¶27

registered as per Ex.P1. Accused was secured and enlarged on bail. His plea was recorded and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, he was tried. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses as PW1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P13 and MO1 and2 and closed its side. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under

¶28

¶29

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein accused denied all the incriminating evidence against him. However, accused did not choose to lead any evidence neither has he produced any documents on his behalf.

¶30

Based on the material evidence the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304-A IPC r/w Sec. 187 of MV Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 187 of MV Act with default sentence. Aggrieved by the same accused preferred an appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, wherein appeal came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and order of trial Court. Hence, aggrieved by both the orders accused is before this Court in this Revision Petition.

¶31

¶32

Heard Sri Rajendra R.Patil, learned counsel for petitioner-accused and Sri Ramesh

¶33

Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State.

¶34

It is contended by the learned counsel for accused that judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and confirmation of the same by the Appellate Court is contrary to the material evidence on record and against the principles of natural justice and hence the judgment of both the Courts deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel further contends that both the courts have not applied its mind and have mechanically passed the order, which is arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel further contends that both the courts have erred in not noticing the material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses and there being no corroboration in the evidence of witnesses, the order of conviction is liable to be set aside. He

¶35

¶36

further contends that necessary ingredients to be established for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A IPC, have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt to convict petitioner - accused.

¶37

Learned counsel further contends that there is no material evidence to prove that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of accused. He further contends that both

¶38

the Courts have failed to consider the fact that the lorry driven by the accused was going North to South and the road was a uphill road. Therefore, the question of accused driving the vehicle in a high speed does not arise. He further contends that both the courts have ignored the fact that there is no damage caused to the vehicle belonging to the accused and so also no damage has been caused to the cycle. Learned counsel further contends that the evidence adduced by PW1, 2 and 4 is contrary to the

¶39

¶40

evidence lead by PW3. Hence in view of

¶41

contradictions the judgments of both the Courts are liable to be set aside. On these grounds learned counsel seeks to allow the petition and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the courts.

¶42

Per contra, learned High Court

¶43

Government Pleader contends that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and confirmation of the same by the Appellate Court is based on the material evidence both oral and documentary and hence the same is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference by this Court. He further contends that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing the evidence of witnesses PW1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8, who have supported the case of the prosecution. Despite there being minor discrepancies and inconsistency in

¶44

¶45

the statement of witnesses, conviction order passed by the trial Court is a well reasoned order and same does not call for any interference. On the basis of these submissions, he seeks to dismiss the petition and confirm the order passed by both the Courts.

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State, the point that arise for consideration before this Court is :

¶47

“Whether there is any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by both the Courts?”

¶48

In order to answer the above point, let us take a cursory look at the case of prosecution. It is not in dispute that the accused was driving the lorry bearing Registration No.KA31/1851 on 06.06.2010 at about 11.45am going towards Banavasi Road from Ramanataggu to Sirsi. No doubt accused denied the causation of accident as alleged by the prosecution,

¶49

¶50

but the eye witnesses PW1 and 4 have clearly stated that accused was driving the lorry in a high speed and in rash and negligent manner thereby causing the accident to the cyclist, who was coming from the opposite direction, due to which he suffered injuries on his chest, fact and bleeding from the nose and thereafter he succumbed to the injuries.

¶51

On perusal of the sketch, which is produced at Ex.P3, it is noticed that on the left side of the road some construction materials were dumped on the road, due to which the lorry has swerved towards right side of the road thereby going towards extreme right and causing accident to the cycle coming from the opposite direction. Though accused has denied the accident itself, eye witnesses PW1 and 4 have supported the case of the prosecution. PW1 deposed that he was coming behind the deceased and therefore, he has seen the accident happening due to the rash and negligent

¶52

¶53

driving of the lorry. Whereas PW4 has stated that he has seen the accident from 100 mtrs. from the shop. These two witnesses are independent witness and there cannot be any enmity attributed to these witness against the accused. Therefore, there cannot be any animosity or ill will attributed to these witnesses.

¶54

On the basis of these available material evidence of witnesses, the trial Court rightfully came to the conclusion and convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304-A IPC r/w 187 of MV Act. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence the Appellate Court has considered the same and has held that judgment of trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity and there being no material evidence in favour of the accused to create any element of doubt, held that the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court was justified and does not call for any interference and

¶55

¶56

accordingly, rejected the appeal filed by the accused and confirmed the order of the trial Court.

¶57

Before this Court the learned counsel for petitioner made various attempts to buttress his arguments with regard to accused being not involved in the alleged accident and that it was solely for the purpose of claiming compensation the complaint against accused was filed. However, accused has failed to controvert the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8, more particularly the evidence of eye witnesses PWs 2 and 4. It is not the case of the accused that there is any animosity or ill-will against the accused by PW1 and 4. All these aspects are reappreciated and re-evaluated by the Appellate Court, which has confirmed the judgment of conviction of the trial Court.

¶58

Accused has not been able to show any material defect, illegality or perversity in the order passed by both the Courts. Therefore, it is hard to believe that corroborative

¶59

¶60

statement of the witnesses against the accused are not true. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court.

¶61

However, considering the case on hand, which is a decade old and petitioner/accused being an uneducated person, wherein his daily livelihood is effected and it is brought to the notice of this Court that in view of this case he has stopped driving vehicle and he is now doing coolie work making it very difficult to earn two meals a day, the order of sentence could be interfered with in view of the mitigating circumstances. Accordingly I pass the following order:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

Petition is partly allowed.

¶64

Judgment of conviction dated 26.2.2011,

¶65

passed by Prl. JMFC, Sirsi, in C.C.No.22/2010 and affirmed by District and Sessions Judge, Uttar

¶66

¶67

Kannada, Karwar, by judgment dated 3.1.2012, in Crl.A.No.56/2011 is hereby upheld. However,

¶68

sentence is hereby modified as under.

¶69

Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of

¶70

Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under section 304A of IPC and in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶71

Sentence of fine imposed for the offence punishable under section 279 of IPC and section 187 of M.V. Act passed by trial Court is sustained.

¶72

RAKESHSHARIHARDigitallysigned byRAKESH SHARIHARDate:2020.12.1811:35:01+0530
Sd/-

¶73

¶74

MRK

Vinayak S/O Dyava Gouda v. the State of Karnataka through Cpi, Sirsi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinayak S/O Dyava Gouda v. the State of Karnataka through Cpi, Sirsi

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

Irappa S/O Mallappa Vijapur Vs Sri.Sharana Basaveshwar Credit Souhardh

Prakash Fakirappa Murgod, Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishwanath Vs the State

The State of Karnataka Vs Ramesh R/O Mahadevappa Ajjodi

Mahantesh Gangappa Maradi Vs Kalmesh Shivalingappa Sangoli

Mehaboob Basha S/O S. Sarmas Sab Vs R.K.Khalander Basha S/O Abdul Razak Sab