Allowed

Ishwar S/O. Ramappa Kumbar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2021CRL.RP/2111/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the High Court confirmed the conviction of the petitioner for rash and negligent driving causing grievous hurt. However, invoking the interest of justice, the Court modified the sentence by setting aside the imposed imprisonment and substituting it with a fine.

What did the court decide?

The sentence of imprisonment set aside and modified by imposition of fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for offences under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC; default imprisonment of 15 days.

Ishwar S/O. Ramappa Kumbar Vs the State of Karnataka — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.2111/2012

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ISHWAR, S/O. RAMAPPA KUMBAR AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BABALADI, TQ. & DIST. BIJAPUR.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. N L BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY PSI SAVALAGI DIST: BAGALKOT

¶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 31.03.2012 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK COURT, JAMAKHANDI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.60/2011 AND ALSO TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE JMFC, JAMAKHANDI IN C.C.NO.185/2009 DATED 28.06.2011.

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR 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. JMFC, Jamakhandi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’, for brevity) in CC No.185/2009 dated 28.06.2011 and confirmed by the Fast Track Court, Jamkhandi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the first Appellate Court’, for brevity) in Criminal Appeal No.60/2011 dated 31.03.2012, for having found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 of the IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 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

¶21

M.V. Act.

¶22

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

¶23

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

¶24

The case of the prosecution before the trial Court is that, the Savalagi Police Station, Taluk Jamkhandi, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC, alleging that, on 03.12.2008 at 7.00 pm, the petitioner being the rider of the motorcycle TVS Vector bearing No.KA-28/Q-0405, driven the motorcycle on in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and dashed to Rahul Kambagi – PW4 and caused grievous injuries. After taking cognizance, the accusations were read over to the accused. He has pleaded not guilty and accordingly the prosecution examined nine witnesses and seven documents. 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

¶25

¶26

supra. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused filed appeal before the first Appellate Court, which came to be dismissed on 31.03.2012. 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 under law. There is material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Except PW1, there is no other eyewitness to the accident. Even otherwise, the sentence passed by the trial Court is very harsh. In spite of imposing fine, the sentence of imprisonment is also imposed. Therefore, at this stage learned counsel prayed for imposing fine by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court.

¶28

Learned HCGP supported the case of the prosecution and contended that there are materials placed on record to show that the accused was guilty of the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle and causing injury. Ex.P4 is the motor vehicle inspection report and Ex.P5 is the wound certificate, which clearly shows the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving

¶29

¶30

and caused 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

¶32

and perusing the records, admittedly nine witnesses have been examined. PW4 is the injured person. PW7 is the doctor who treated PW4 and Ex.P5 is the wound certificate. 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. The petitioner also failed to intimate the accident to the police or tried to give any treatment to the injured. Therefore, 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 However, the alternative argument of the learned is that the petitioner is ready to pay the fine amount for the offence under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC.

¶33

¶34

In this regard, it is to be noted that the punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 279 of IPC is the imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or fine which may be extended to 1,000/- or with both. The offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC is punishable with a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine of 1,000/- or with both. Further, Ex.P4 shows only two injuries. Injury No.1 is said to be a fracture injury and there is no proper reason assigned by the trial Court for awarding extreme punishment or maximum punishment of both imprisonment as well as fine and for awarding punishment of six months for the offence under Section 338 of IPC. The petitioner is visiting the Court and contesting the case from 2008 to till date and he has undergone ordeals of trial.

¶35

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of 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:

¶36

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Petition is allowed in part . The judgment of conviction and

¶39

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. If fine amount is already deposited, the petitioner is set at liberty forthwith. His bail bonds stands cancelled.

¶40

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of .

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

gab

Ishwar S/O. Ramappa Kumbar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar S/O. Ramappa Kumbar 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

Ramakrishna S/O Shankarayan Hegde Vs Mahendra S/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde

Shri.Gajbarsab Gulabsab Multani Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravi Naik S/O Tulaja Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Aduri W/O Mulami Adivasi Rajput Vs the State of Karnataka

Bande Navaz Rashmi S/O Vajirsab Rashmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumantha S/O Pakkirappa Vs the State of Karnataka