Partly allowed

Sri K. Rama v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2021CRL.RP/1277/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition partly, confirming the conviction of the petitioner for rash driving causing death but reducing the rigorous imprisonment term for Section 304(A) by one month.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in part; conviction confirmed; sentence reduced by one month from six months rigorous to five months simple imprisonment.

Sri K. Rama Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1277/2011

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI K. RAMA, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O LATE CHANIYA, R/AT SHANTHA PADAVU, ADYANADKA, ENMAKAJE VILLAGE, KASARGOOD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. ...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SMT. ARCHANA K.M. AMICUS CURIAE AND SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANAMBUR CIRCLE, NEW MANGALORE, D.K. ...RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT, AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2011, PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SESSION JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K., IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 144/2010 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C (III COURT), MANGALORE, D.K.,

¶13

¶14

DATED 25.09.2010 IN C.C.No.1878/2009 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 279 AND 304 (A) OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the judgment dated 29.10.2011 passed in Crl.A. No.144/2010 wherein the appeal came to be dismissed on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore, thereby confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court in C.C.No.1878/2009 on 25.09.2010.

¶18

Earlier, learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304 (A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment along with fine.

¶19

¶20

In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties are addressed in the ranking of their status before the Trial Court

¶21

The case of the prosecution before the Trial Court as per the certified copy of the judgment dated 25.09.2010 in C.C. No. 1878/2009 is as under:

¶22

"2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

¶23

That on 21.01.2009 at 08.30 a.m., the accused being the driver of Lorry bearing Registration No. KA-19-B-4809, drove the same from Padavinangady towards Kavoor in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and when he was taking turn towards Kavoor near Bondel Junction, meanwhile trying to overtake one Motorcycle bearing Regn.No. KA02-EY-4656 of Sandeep who was going from in front of his vehicle and the accused came extreme left side of the road and middle portion of the lorry dashed to the said Motorcycle, because of which Sandeep sustained grievous injuries and succumbed on the way to the

¶24

¶25

hospital to fatal injuries and thereby, accused has committed the offence punishable u/ss. 279 and 304 (A) IPC".

¶26

Learned trial judge took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused. After receipt of summons, accused appeared and he was released on bail, plea was recoded, accusation was read over to him, he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

¶27

The learned Trial Judge was accommodated with the following oral and documentary evidence on behalf of prosecution and no oral or documentary evidence is adduced or produced by the accused:

¶28

FOR COMPLAINANT:

¶29

P.W.1	:	Chandrashekhar
P.W.2	:	Sandeep
P.W.3	:	Pushparaj
P.W.4	:	Mohammed Ali
P.W.5	:	Premanath
P.W.6	:	Sachin
P.W.7	:	Shanmukappa Bovi
P.W.8	:	Ramadas

¶30

¶31

P.W.9	:	Gururaj Shenoy
P.W.10	:	Laxman
P.W.11	:	Anantha Padmanabha
P.W.12	:	K.M.Chandrashekar
Ex.P1	:	Complaint
Ex.P1 (a)	:	Signature of PW.1
Ex.P1 (b)	:	Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P2	:	Spot mahazar
Ex.P2 (a)	:	Signature of PW.1
Ex.P2 (b)	:	Signature of PW.7
Ex.P2 (c)	:	Signature of PW.11
Ex.P3	:	Sketch
Ex.P3(a)	:	Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P3(b)	:	Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P4	:	Inquest
Ex.P4 (a)	:	Signature of PW.2
Ex.P4 (b)	:	Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P4 (c)	:	Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P5	:	Section 133 notice
Ex.P5 (a)	:	Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P5 (b)	:	Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P6	:	Reply to notice
Ex.P6 (a)	:	Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P6 (b)	:	Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P7	:	Receipt
Ex.P8	:	F.I.R.
Ex.P8 (a)	:	Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P9	:	Death Intimation
Ex.P9 (a)	:	Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P9	:	P.M.Report
Ex.P9 (1)	:	Signature of PW.12
Ex.P10	:	I.M.V. Report
Ex.P10(a)	:	Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P11	:	Death Intimation
Ex.P11 (a)	:	Signature of P.W.11

¶32

¶33

The learned trial judge after considering

¶34

the oral and documentary evidence held the accused guilty and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 750/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 304 (A) of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and the sentences to run concurrently.

¶35

As stated above, the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence was questioned by the accused in criminal appeal No.144/2010. The learned appellate judge after hearing the parties had dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the accused by

¶36

¶37

confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the Judgments passed by both the courts below, accused has filed this criminal revision petition.

¶38

Learned Amicus Curiae Smt. Archana K.M., appearing for the accused/petitioner submitted that the accused has disputed the very commission of the offence. According to the accused, he was not the driver of the offending vehicle on the date of the occurrence of the accident.

¶39

Smt. Yashoda K., learned HCGP submits that eye witnesses have identified the accused and the vehicle. PW1 has unequivocally stated that accused is his employee as a driver of the lorry bearing No.KA.19.E.289 and has confirmed the said fact in his reply to the letter.

¶40

¶41

In the context, it is seen that that the person

¶42

who is succumbed to the injuries is one Sandeep who was riding his vehicle and the name of PW-2 is also named as Sandeep. On perusal of the papers, in the complaint dated 21.01.2009 lodged by one Chandrashekhar (PW-1), the place of occurrence is stated as Bondel junction. The lorry was coming from Paduvinangady to Kavoor. At the spot, the lorry was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and on the spot, he took abrupt turn and the entire vehicle turned towards the extreme left and hit the motor cycle being driven by one Sandeep who was riding his motor cycle bearing No. KA-06-EY-4656 sustained serious injuries on head and other parts of the body and he was taken in an auto to A.G. Hospital by the complainant and the Doctor had examined injured and declared him dead. Thus the person who died due to the accident is one Sandeep, the rider of

¶43

¶44

the motor cycle. However, PW-2 is a witness to the incident who is also called as Sandeep.

¶45

Thus the person who died due to the accident is one Sandeep, the rider of the motor cycle. PW2 is a witness and his name is Sandeep and

¶46

he is the driver of pick up jeep who was present there. A reading of para-2 of the judgment shows that it is written as if PW2 was traveling and vehicle was ridden by him, lorry dashed to him in the process of overtaking and PW2 suffered injuries, he was taken to hospital and he succumbed. It is quite meaningless if he had succumbed to the injuries he would neither be the complainant nor be the PW2 to depose before the court. Thus, it appears, the learned appellate judge unnoticed the said natural fact and has wrote the same by unnoticing the facts mentioned before the trial court in the complaint and the charge sheet.

¶47

¶48

Learned trial judge has noted in para 38 of the judgment that the accused has not taken specific defence. However, he states that he was not the person who was driving the lorry at the time when the accident has occurred. This has to be examined with reference to the evidence of PW9 who is the owner of the lorry who has confirmed that the accused being the driver was his employee. However, the eye witness in the case is PW1-Chandrashekhar who is the complainant. PW2-Sandeep whose evidence is as stated above. PW3-Pushparaj is the auto driver who has carried the injured to the hospital and PW4 is the owner of a petty shop. Basically, there is no bias or prejudice or vested interest to the witnesses to depose against the accused by tarnishing the facts. The uniformity in their evidence is, lorry that was driven in a rash and negligent manner and at the spot, the motor cycle rider was at the extreme left

¶49

¶50

side of the road, the driver turned the lorry to the left and the impact of the accident or crushing of the motorcycle is exactly on the mid portion of the lorry that goes to show that to what an extent the abrupt act was committed by the driver.

¶51

Considering the density and force of the lorry, the driver ought not to have moved it in such a huge speed to have the impact as stated above. Negligence would be a pre existing factor. I do not find any hesitation or doubt to concur with the judgments of the trial court and the appellate court. There is no ground to alter the finding on guilt and they deserve to be confirmed insofar conviction is concerned.

¶52

Learned counsel for accused submits that the accused is having aged mother and regular before the trial court and considering the facing of the trial from 2009, a lenient view may be taken. Considering the

¶53

¶54

facts and circumstances and the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner, the substantial sentence is liable to be reduced by one month. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed by reducing the order of sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court by one month for the offence punishable under Section 304 (A) of IPC.

¶55

Later Learned counsel for petitioner Sri. Pundikai Ishwar Bhat appeared after the commencement of the dictation of the judgment and his appearance is noted and he has concluded his submission.

¶56

The assistance of learned Amicus Curiae for

¶57

petitioner is placed on record.

Sd/JUDGE

tsn*

NKSJ:

27.10.2021

Crl.R.P.No.1277/2011

“Order on being Spoken To”

¶65

There was honest overlapping as to period of altered sentence.

¶66

The same is clarified as ‘ reduced by one month, that is from “six months rigorous imprisonment to “five months simple imprisonment”.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

Sri K. Rama v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K. Rama 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

Dr Sjidha M Vs M/S Maragosoochi Chits Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Ntec Electricals Vs M/S Assoicated Electrical Agncies

A Babu Vs Manjappa T

Sri M v Dwarakanath Vs Sri J C Kempaiah

Sri Muni Shekar M Vs State by Mico Police Station

Siddangouda S/O Bheemarayagouda Police Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka