Partly allowed

Arun Kumar v. the State by Bagepalli Police

Karnataka HC19 Mar 2021CRL.RP/31/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In revision under Cr.P.C. regarding conviction for negligence causing death in a motor accident, the High Court upheld the conviction based on eyewitness testimony. However, modifying the sentence to six months to avoid harsh impact on the petitioner's family as he was a sole earner, with increased fines.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced from one year to six months; fine increased to Rs. 50,000; fine to be paid to injured witness PW-2.

Arun Kumar Vs the State by Bagepalli Police — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

¶6

CRL.RP No.31/2012

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

ARUN KUMAR S/O MUTHUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT VETTURUKATTEVELUDEVANNA KAVANDANUR POST SANGAGIRI SALEM DISTRICT TAMIL NADU

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI LOKANATHA.T.V, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE BY BAGEPALLI POLICE REPTD. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE.

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI ROHITH.B.J, HCGP,)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2010 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,

¶17

¶18

BAGEPALLI IN C.C.NO.217/2009 AND ORDER DATED 14.12.2011 PASSED BY THE ADHOC SESSIONS JUDGE, FTC-I, CHIKKABALLAPUR IN CRL.A.NO.3/11 AND ETC.

¶19

THIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING;

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner has suffered an order of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC and is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six days. The judgment rendered by the trial Court has been affirmed by the Adhoc Sessions Judge, Chikballapur, in Crl. Appeal No. 3/2011.

¶22

Learned counsel for petitioner/accused contends that both the Courts below have convicted the petitioner/accused based on the solitary evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 was an interested witness, inasmuch as the deceased were all related to the petitioner/accused and therefore

¶23

¶24

conviction could not be sustained on the basis of interested testimony of the witness examined by the prosecution. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner/accused that barring the above evidence, no other material is produced by the prosecution either by way of spot sketch or any other reliable material to show that the alleged accident was caused on account of negligence of the petitioner/accused. The learned counsel pointed out that the evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly indicates that the road was under repair and the vehicles were plying on either direction and under the said circumstance, the damage sustained to the Tata Sumo vehicle itself suggests that the Tata Sumo vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident which fact has not been considered by the Courts below resulting in failure of justice.

¶25

Learned High Court Government Pleader however

¶26

argued in support of the impugned judgment contending

¶27

¶28

that both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence produced by the prosecution in proper perspective and there being no patent error or perversity or infirmity in appreciation of the evidence, the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below cannot be interfered with solely on the ground that alternative view is possible and thus sought to dismiss the revision petition.

¶29

I have considered the submissions urged by the

¶30

learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the records.

¶31

The scope of revision under Section 399 Cr.P.C. is

¶32

limited. Merely because alternate view is possible from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the revisional Court cannot interfere with the judgments rendered by the Courts below when the findings are rendered based on the evidence adduced by the parties. In the instant case, it is seen from the records that the road where the accident had taken place was under repair and therefore, vehicles were

¶33

¶34

permitted to ply on either direction. The evidence of PW-2 indicates that the Tata Sumo vehicle in which the deceased inmates were traveling, was driven on the left side of the road. Eventhough repeated suggestions were made to P.W.2 that the Tata Sumo vehicle tried to overtake the lorry and in the process hit against the lorry driven by the petitioner/accused, this suggestion has been consistently denied by P.W.2. No circumstances are brought out in the evidence of P.W.2 or in the evidence of any other witnesses to probabalise the defence of the petitioner/accused that the accident in question was caused while the Tata Sumo vehicle overtook the lorry. Under the said circumstance, the inevitable conclusion that could be drawn from the evidence of P.W.2 is that the petitioner/accused drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the oncoming Tata Sumo vehicle in which the deceased and PW-2 were travelling.

¶35

¶36

The contention of the learned counsel for

¶37

petitioner/accused that the testimony of P.W.2 cannot be

¶38

relied on because he is an interested witness and conviction cannot be based on the testimony of the solitary witness cannot be accepted especially in view of the fact that P.W.2 was an inmate of the involved vehicle. The evidence of PW-2 that he and his family members were traveling in the Tata Sumo vehicle from Bengaluru to Dharmavaram indicates that he was not only a natural witness, but an eye witness to the incident. His testimony has not been discredited to any extent. No circumstances have been brought out in his cross-examination to create any doubt with regard to the manner in which the accident had taken place; the Courts below therefore were justified in accepting the evidence of P.W.2 to bring home the guilt of petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC. As a result, I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by the Courts below.

¶39

¶40

Insofar as order of sentence is concerned, having

¶41

regard to the fact that seven deaths have been caused on account of the gross negligence of the petitioner/accused, the trial Court has imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- which in the circumstances of the case appears to be just and reasonable. However, having regard to the fact that the said accident had taken place in the year 2009 and even during the trial, the petitioner was on bail and he being the sole earning member of the family, it would serve the ends of justice, if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to a period of six months with proportionate increase in fine amount. Accordingly, in modification of the order of sentence passed by the trial court, the petitioner/accused is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default to pay the fine amount, he shall undergo further

¶42

¶43

imprisonment of one and half (1-1/2) months. On deposit or realisation of the fine amount, the same shall be made over to P.W.2 on proper identification. Sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC is maintained. The substantive sentences imposed by the trial Court shall run concurrently. Petitioner/accused is entitled for the benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

¶44

Petition stands allowed-in-part in terms of the above

¶45

order.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

LRS/mn/CT-VR

Arun Kumar v. the State by Bagepalli Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar v. the State by Bagepalli Police

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

M/S Jai Hanuman Export Vs M/S R K Granites and Mining Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. K. Sushma Vs State by Jeevan Bhima Nagar

Sri Prabhuswamy Vs Smt Shivamma

Nawaz Vs State by Devarajeevana Halli P.S

Nataraje Urs Vs Kum Spoorthi

D N Nemiraj Vs Smt Shylashree @ Chandrakala