Partly allowed

Suresh S/O. Vittal Biradar Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2021CRL.RP/2110/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition in part. It confirmed the conviction and the sentence under the Motor Vehicles Act but set aside the imprisonment awarded for IPC offences, imposing a fine instead. The accused was granted liberty.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment set aside and modified to fine of `1,000/- each for Sections 279 and 338 IPC; imprisonment in default of payment; conviction under MV Act confirmed.

Suresh S/O. Vittal Biradar Patil Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.2110/2012

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SURESH S/O. VITTAL BIRADAR PATIL AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. CHIKKUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. N. L. BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY PSI RURAL PS JAMAKHANDI,

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 18.04.2012 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK COURT, JAMAKHANDI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.67/2011 AND ALSO TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMAKHANDI IN C.C.NO.27/2010 DATED 18.07.2011.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’, for brevity) in CC No . 27/2010 dated 18.07.2011 and confirmed by the Fast Track Court, Jamkhandi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the first Appellate Court’, for brevity) in Criminal Appeal No.67/2011 dated 18.04.2012, for having found the petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 of the IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’, for brevity) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of 1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 of IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days and further sentenced pay

¶19

¶20

fine of `500/- for the offence punishable under Section 187 of the M.V. Act.

¶21

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

¶22

petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the records. The rankings of the parties before the trial Court are retained for convenience.

¶23

The case of the prosecution before the trial Court is that, the Jamkhandi Rural Police Station filed charge sheet against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC, alleging that, on 23.12.2009 at about 5.45

¶24

pm, the petitioner being the rider of the Tractor and Trailer bearing No.KA-48/T-316, T-317, T-318, loaded with sugar cane, driven the same in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and with the same speed has turned the tractor towards the Prabhulingeshwar Sugar Factory road thereby causing the back trailer of the tractor bearing No.KA-48/T-318 to topple and fall on one Sivananda Basappa Mamadapur – PW4, who was coming from the factory on his bicycle and thereby caused him grievous injuries. He has not intimated the same to the police nor given any

¶25

¶26

treatment to the victim. Hence has been charge sheeted by the Jamakhandi Police. The presence of accused was secured by the trial Court. After taking cognizance, the accusations were read over and explained to the accused. He has pleaded not guilty and accordingly the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and marked eleven documents. After concluding the evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The case of the accused was total denial. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences alleged and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as stated above. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused filed an appeal before the first Appellate Court, which came to be dismissed on 18.04.2012. Hence the accused is before this Court.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in law. There are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Though the wound certificate is marked as Ex.P8, but the doctor who treated the victim has not been examined by the prosecution. Even otherwise,

¶28

¶29

as per the case of the prosecution, the accused turned the tractor and trailer and the third trailer toppled down and fell on PW4, which is not within the knowledge of the accused. The sentence passed by the trial Court is very harsh. The rash and negligent driving of the accused is not intentional to convict him both with imprisonment and with fine. The learned counsel alternatively prayed for setting aside the sentence or to modify the same by imposing only fine.

¶30

Per contra, learned HCGP supported the judgments passed by both the Courts below and contended that there are materials placed on record to show that the accused was guilty of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer and causing injuris to the victim. Ex.P9 is the motor vehicle inspection report and Ex.P8 is the wound certificate, which clearly shows the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving causing injury to PW4. The evidence of all the witnesses corroborate with each other. Hence prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶31

Upon considering the arguments of the learned counsel and perusing the records, admittedly twelve witnesses have been

¶32

¶33

examined by the prosecution. PW4 is the injured person. Sustaining injury by PW4 is not in dispute. The complaint came to be lodged by the complainant and the FIR came to be registered later. The Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against the accused person. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court rightly found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC and Section 187 of the M.V. Act. I do not find any error in finding of the guilt of the accused persons under Sections 338 and 279 of the IPC and under Section 187 of the M.V.Act.

¶34

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions held that, normally the court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below in holding the conviction by exercising power under Section 397 Cr.PC, unless there is any illegality or error is committed by the trial Court. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 23.12.2008 while the accused was driving the tractor and trailer loaded with the sugar cane. There were two trailers and they were fully loaded with the sugar cane and when it was turning to the factory from the road, the third trailer bearing No.KA-48/T-318 toppled down and fell on the victim due to which

¶35

¶36

he sustained injuries. The evidence of PW1 – complainant and PW4 – injured, corroborates with the complaint filed by PW1 and Ex.P8 – wound certificate. The rash and negligence driving of the accused and causing of the accident toppling down of the trailer is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the accused in the trial Court and he also identified the accused as the driver of the tractortrailer. The prosecution clearly established that the accused has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the trailer loaded with sugar cane fell down on PW4 and caused him grievous injuries. Therefore, the finding the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC and Section 187 of the M.V. Act could not be interfered with.

¶37

By looking to the sentence imposed by the trial Court, wherein the trial Court awarded sentence of both imprisonment as well as fine, it is to be noted that the prescribed punishment for the offence under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC is imposing fine or imprisonment or with both. Though the imprisonment may extend up to six months for offence under Section 279 of IPC and extend up to two years for the offence under Section 338 of the IPC or with fine or with both, but while passing the sentence in a case like rash

¶38

¶39

and negligent driving and causing injuries, normally the Court shall have to impose fine alone in stead of both imprisonment as well as fine.

¶40

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, where the trailer fell down on PW4, it cannot be said directly that the accused was caused injury to the victim. Therefore, for the offence under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC, the trial Court need not impose harsh punishment of both imprisonment and fine and it is permitted to accused persons to plead the guilt and to pay fine in the traffic accident cases. Even in the year 2006, an amendment is brought to Chapter XXIA of Cr.P.C. by inserting Sections 265A and 265L, with effect from 05.07.2006, where the plea bargaining is permitted by the Code. Such being the case, the trial Court, especially the JMFC Court, to avoid conducting the trials under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, if the accused pleaded guilty, need not waste court time by conducting trial only for the offence under Sections 279, 337 or 338 of IPC, which is punishable with fine, by giving option of punishment except in serious offences.

¶41

¶42

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of

¶43

the case, in the interest of justice, if only fine is imposed instead of imprisonment, it would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

Petition is allowed in part . The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellant Court is hereby set aside and modified by imposing fine of `1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo imprisonment for 15 days. The punishment under Section 187 of M.V. Act is hereby confirmed. If fine amount is already deposited, the petitioner is set at liberty forthwith. His bail bonds stands cancelled.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

gab

Suresh S/O. Vittal Biradar Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh S/O. Vittal Biradar Patil 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

Basappa Mahadevappa Kadlikoppa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sanni S/O Venkataranagayya Mothukuri @ Mothukuri Vs the State of Karnataka

Nana Kale S/O. Bhaskar Kale Vs the State of Karnataka

Annappa S/O Yallappa Kagi Vs State of Karnataka

Allabakshi Alias Allabaksh S/O Khader Sab Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Shivshankar S/O Satyappa Dabbu Vs the State of Karnataka