T Basavaraj S/O. T Basappa, v. the State by Ittigi

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2021CRL.RP/2023/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death of three persons. The court upheld the lower courts' findings despite some hostile witnesses, noting the undisputed deaths, injuries, and lack of mechanical defect. The petitioner's plea for acquittal and enhanced fines was rejected. Disposition: dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

T Basavaraj S/O. T Basappa, Vs the State by Ittigi — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^th DAY OF JANUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.2023/2012

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

T BASAVARAJ S/O. T BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 22 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,R/O: VARAKANAHALLI, TQ: HADAGALI,DIST: BELLARY.

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. GODE NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE BY ITTIGI POLICE STATION ITTIGI, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BELLARY.

¶12

.. RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 5.11.2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED FAST TRACK COURT-II, HOSPET, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.35/2011 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED IN CC NO.1216/2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HADAGALI DATED 16.6.2011 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE CHARGES AND HE MAY BE SET AT LIBERTY. PASS SUCH ANY OTHER ORDER/S AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS COURT UNDER THE FACTS AND

¶15

¶16

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.6.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Hadagali, in CC No.1216/2010(hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’, for brevity) convicting for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity) and 181, 183 and 187 of IMV Act confirmed by the judgment and order dated 05.11.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court-III at Hospet, in Criminal Appeal No.35/2011.

¶20

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶21

¶22

The rank of the parties before the trial Court is maintained for convenience.

¶23

Ittigi Police, Hadagali taluk, filed charge sheet against the petitioner/accused for the aforesaid offence alleging that on 04.05.2010 at about 9.15 am, the accused being the driver of the Appe Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-34/8057 drove the vehicle without holding license in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and when driving the vehicle near one kilometer from Malleshwara temple due to is rash and negligent driving while taking turn at a curve, dashed to the edge of the bridge due to which, the persons travelling in the vehicle sustained injuries. Out of which 3 persons namely Hanumavva, Ajjayya and Shilpa died and all other persons sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to the Government Hospital for treatment and after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet.

¶24

The trial Court after taking cognizance, read over the accusation against the accused. He has denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.

¶25

¶26

The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined 35 witnesses as PWs.1 to 35 and 37 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-37, thereafter the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The incriminating evidence against the accused was explained to the accused. The case of the accused was one of total denial. The accused did not adduced any evidence in support of his defence. The trial Court after hearing the counsel for the accused and the Public Prosecutor found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced the petitioner to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- with default sentence for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC respectively and also sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Sections 181, 183 and 187 of IMV Act respectively with default sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court in Crl.A. No.35/2011 which came to be dismissed confirming the order

¶27

¶28

of the trial Court. Hence, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

¶29

Sri. Gode Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously argued that the trial Court committed an error in convicting the petitioner and the first appellate Court has also committed illegality in not re-appreciating the evidence in proper perspective. Both the Courts below failed to consider that most of the witnesses have turned hostile including PWs.2 to 6 and 8 to 12, 16, 17, 24 and 22 to 31 and some of the witnesses have stated that the incident occurred when the accused tried to avoid the accident when a she buffalo came on road, which is not properly appreciated by both the Courts below and committed error in convicting the accused. Therefore, considering the entire material on record, negligent driving has not been proved and when negligence is not proved, the accused is entitled for acquittal for the remaining offence and alternatively contended that the petitioner is in prison. He will pay the enhanced fine amount imposed by the Court. Hence, prayed for acquitting the petitioner by allowing the petition.

¶30

¶31

Per contra, Sri. Ramesh B. Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent contended that all the witnesses have supported the prosecution case including the main injured persons and the police officials. The postmortem examination report and the wound certificate are marked with consent of the learned counsel for the accused. 3 persons died and 8 persons sustained injuries and the prosecution is successful in proving rash and negligent driving and causing the accident. The accused did not explain anything in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement and did not lead evidence to rebut the evidence of the prosecution. Merely because some of the inquest witnesses have turned hostile that by itself would not be a ground to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner since death of 3 persons and other persons sustaining injuries is not in dispute. Hence, the learned counsel supported the judgment of the both the Courts below.

¶32

Upon hearing the contentions of both the parties and on perusal of the record, the factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 04.05.2010 at about 9.15 am the petitioner

¶33

¶34

drove the vehicle by carrying almost 35 persons. When he was proceeding, at the distance of about 1 km from Malleshwara Temple, due to his rash and negligent driving, he dashed to the road side bridge due to which, the vehicle turned turtle in which 3 persons died and almost 20 persons sustained injuries both grievous and simple. PW.13 who is the complainant and also injured eyewitnesses categorically stated in his evidence about the rash and negligent diving and causing the accident by the accused. The other injured persons PWs.8 to 12, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24 and 27 though turned hostile but PWs.13 to 15, 18 to 20 and 23 supported the prosecution case and they have admitted involvement of the vehicle and they sustaining injuries in the accident. The Police Officer PW-34 who conducted investigation has categorically stated about the witnesses sustaining injuries, conducting panchanama both inquest and spot panchanama. The postmortem report of 3 persons Exs.P-17 to 19 were marked with consent. Thereby the death of 3 persons namely Shilpa, Ajjayya and Hanumavva is not in dispute. Exs.P-20 to 32 are the wound certificates of injured persons who were traveling in the vehicle were also got marked with consent. Thereby the accused admitted and not disputed the

¶35

¶36

injuries sustained by the persons who traveled in the Appe vehicle. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was the driver of the Appe vehicle on the date of the accident. It is also proved by the prosecution that the accused was not holding any driving license to drive the vehicle as on the date of the accident. The accused did not enter witness box or explained anything in his 313 statement as to how the accident had occurred and how he drove the vehicle and what precautionary measures he had taken to avoid the accident while taking turn in a curve. Of course some of the witnesses have stated that a she buffalo came on the road and when he tried to avoid hitting the buffalo, the accident occurred. But in the entire evidence, it is not brought on evidence by the counsel for the accused to impeach the evidence of the witnesses who have supported the prosecution case. There is nothing to disbelieve their evidence, especially the other injured eye witnesses who sustained the injuries in the accident. MVI report Ex.P-36 clearly goes to show that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defect. Merely because some of the inquest panch witnesses have turned hostile, the evidence of the other witnesses cannot be brushed aside as death of 3 persons is not disputed and they died due to

¶37

¶38

the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident is also proved by marking the documents in the trail Court with the consent of the parties. Even on considering the entire evidence on record, learned counsel for the petitioner was also not able to explain and produce any documents to show that the petitioner was holding any driving license as on the date of the accident.

¶39

Therefore, considering the entire material on record,

¶40

the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused person finding him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379, 337, 338, and 304A of IPC and the first appellate Court, after re-appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving the case of the prosecution regarding rash and negligent driving in causing the accident. All the witnesses PWs.7, 13, 19, 20 and 23 and Investigation Officers including other police officials are successful in proving the guilt of the accused for having caused the accident and death of 3 persons and other persons sustaining injures. Of course inquest panchanama goes to show the manner of rashness in driving the vehicle and causing the accident by the accused. There is nothing

¶41

¶42

to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses in proving the guilt of the accused in order to interfere.

¶43

The alternative argument addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for imposing more fine amount and to set aside the sentence of imprisonment cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the case, as 3 persons died and many persons have sustained injures both grievous and simple.

¶44

Therefore, considering all these aspects, I do not find any error or illegality or erroneous or perverse finding recorded by the courts below to se aside the same.

¶45

11. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶46

The Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below is hereby upheld.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

kmv

T Basavaraj S/O. T Basappa, v. the State by Ittigi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

T Basavaraj S/O. T Basappa, v. the State by Ittigi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurayya Hemayya Kadayyanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresh S/O. Huchappa Chalavannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Husensab S/O Mardanasab Balannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagendra S/O Mallappa Kabbur Vs Sharanabasappa S/O Siddramappa Umachagi

Pruthviraj S/O Shankar Swamy Vs State of Karnataka

Sharanabasappa S/O Siddaramappa Umachagi Vs Nagendra S/O Mallappa Kabbur