Partly allowed

Reghunath Paswan S/O Shivakumar Paswan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jul 2021CRL.RP/444/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition in part. It upheld the conviction for rash driving causing death but set aside the separate sentence for the offence of rash driving (Section 279 IPC) as it merged with the charge of causing death by negligence (Section 304-A IPC).

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed in-part; separate sentence for Section 279 IPC set aside as it merged with Section 304-A IPC.

Reghunath Paswan S/O Shivakumar Paswan Vs the State… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.444 OF 2012

¶5

BETWEEN :

¶6

RAGHUNATH PASWAN, S/O SHIVAKUMAR PASWAN, AGED 26 YEARS, R/AT C/O R. LAKSHMAN, NO.114, V MAIN, JAYAMAHAL LAYOUT, BENGALURU. …PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI AJIT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND :

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ULSOOR GATE POLICE STATION. …RESPONDENT

¶10

(BY SRI K. S. ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2012 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTCXVI, BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.266/2011 AND ORDER DATED 07.04.2011 PASSED BY THE MMTC-V, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.4985/2009.

¶12

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON OR HEARING THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This revision petition is filed by the accused, who has been convicted in C.C.No.4985/2009 by judgment dated 07.04.2011 passed by the V Additional Traffic Court, Bengaluru and order of conviction being confirmed in Crl.A.No.266/2011 on the file of Fast Track Court, Bengaluru City by judgment dated 30.01.2012, challenging the validity of both judgments.

¶16

Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

¶17

Upon a complaint lodged to the Ulsoor Gate Traffic Inspector, a case came to be registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC read with Sections 134 (a and b) and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the

¶18

¶19

complaint it is contended that on 17.11.2009 around 03.45 P.M., accused being a driver of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02-MC-8358 drove the same in NR Road from Northern side to Southern side in a rash and negligent manner, endangering the life of human being and dashed against the Hanumanthappa (deceased), who was crossing the road, has suffered grievous injuries and he was shifted to Victoria Hospital. Ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries on the same day about 10.50 P.M. Based on the said complaint, the Investigating Agency investigated the matter in detail and filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

¶20

After filing of charge sheet, the trial Magistrate took cognizance with the offences alleged against accused and recorded plea wherein, the accused pleaded not guilty and as such, the trial was held.

¶21

¶22

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined 6 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.8 and relied on 10 documentary evidences which are exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.10.

¶23

On conclusion of prosecution of evidence, learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the accused as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein, the accused denied all incriminating circumstances found against him and did not offer any explanation to the incident.

¶24

Thereafter, learned Magistrate on hearing arguments in detail and convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC read with Sections 134 (A) and (B) and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act and passed the following sentence;

¶25

¶26

Offence	Punishment	Fine (in Rs	.)
279	Simple imprisonment for one month	1,000/- In default, si imprisonment 15 days.	mple for
304-A	Simple imprisonment for six months	5,000/- In default, si imprisonment 3 months.	mple for
134(a)	--	500/- In default, si imprisonment 7 days.	mple for
134(b)		500/- In default, si imprisonment 7 days.	mple for

¶27

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, accused preferred an appeal before the Fast Track Court, Bengaluru City which was numbered as Crl.A.No.266/2011.

¶28

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court

¶29

secured the records and after hearing the parties in detail, by judgment dated 30.01.2012 dismissed the

¶30

¶31

appeal and confirmed the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate.

¶32

Being aggrieved by both judgments, accused is before this Court in this revision petition.

¶33

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri Ajit Anand Shetty vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the case. He further argued that the material evidence placed by the prosecution has not been appreciated by both the Courts in its proper perspective. He further contended that the place of accident is a busy road and the deceased did not choose to cross the road on the prescribed zebra crossing but he came all of a sudden on the road and when the accused was driving the car in the normal speed, he lost control only because of the action attributable to the deceased and thereby accident took place and as such, there was no

¶34

¶35

intentional negligence on the part of the accused in the said accident. He further argued that the eyewitnesses examined on behalf of prosecution are implanted eyewitnesses and the same has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court which is ignored by the First Appellate Court and prayed for allowing the revision petition.

¶36

Alternatively, he submitted that the offences under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC are compoundable offences and therefore, the accused be permitted to compound the offences and prayed for allowing the revision petition.

¶37

Per contra, Sri K. S. Abhijith, learned HCGP supported the impugned judgments and contended that the eyewitnesses examined in the case as PWs.3 and 4 who did not possess any enmity or animosity against the accused and therefore, their testimony has

¶38

¶39

been rightly appreciated by the leaned Magistrate which was properly re-appreciated by the First Appellate Court and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶40

Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, he contended that having regard to the nature of offences, the submission is made on behalf of the revision petitioner that accused be permitted to compound the offences cannot be countenanced in law and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶41

Having heard the arguments of both sides and perusal of the records, the points that would arise for consideration are as follows:

¶42

1. Whether the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court that the accused is guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC read with

¶43

¶44

Sections 134 (A) and (B) and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, is suffering from patent error, legal infirmity, and perversity so as to call for interference by this Court?

¶45

2. Whether the sentence is excessive?

¶46

In the case on hand, the accident and accidental death of the deceased Hanumanthappa is not in dispute. PWs.3 and 4 who are the eyewitnesses were also proceeding on the same road, have deposed before the trial Magistrate in a categorical manner with graphic details about the incident. The crossexamination of these witnesses on behalf of the accused did not yield any worthy material so as to disbelieve their testimony. Accused in fact failed to offer any explanation while recording the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, following the judgment in the case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 9 SCC 284, the trial

¶47

¶48

Magistrate was justified in convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences as rightly argued by the learned High Court Government Pleader, PW.3 and 4 being the strangers to the accused and deceased did not possess any enmity or animosity against the accused nor extra affinity towards deceased. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate that the accident has occurred on account of negligence of the accused stands established beyond reasonable doubt.

¶49

There is no contra material on record to arrive at a different opinion than recorded by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court especially having regard to scope of the revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner is unable to make out any grounds whatsoever much less good grounds to hold that the impugned judgments are suffering from patent defect, error of jurisdiction or law or perversity. Therefore,

¶50

¶51

the finding recorded by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court that the accused is solely responsible for the accidental death of Hanumanthappa, needs no interference.

¶52

Insofar as the sentence is concerned, the trial Magistrate has convicted the accused both for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. In the case on hand, only one victim is there and therefore, the offence under Section 279 of IPC merges with offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Therefore, separate sentence in respect of offence under Section 279 of IPC needs to be set aside.

¶53

Further as could be seen from the sentence passed by the trial Magistrate as aforesaid supra, in respect of Section 304-A of IPC, learned Magistrate has granted six months Simple Imprisonment and ordered fine with default sentence. The State has not

¶54

¶55

preferred any appeal against the said order of sentence seeking enhancement of sentence. Following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence of imprisonment of six months is just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative and following order is passed:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

1. Revision petition is allowed in-part .

¶58

2. Separate sentence of imprisonment ordered under Section 279 of IPC is hereby set aside as the same merges with punishment awarded for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. Rest of the order and sentence stands unaltered.

¶59

Ordered accordingly.

¶60

¶61

Four weeks’ time is granted to accused to surrender before the trial Magistrate for serving the remaining part of sentence.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

HA/-

Reghunath Paswan S/O Shivakumar Paswan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reghunath Paswan S/O Shivakumar Paswan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohaameed Noorulla Vs State by

M B Hanumantharayappa Vs State of Karnataka

Shivaraya S/O Yamunappa Javadagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Siddarame Gowda Vs Smt Prabhavathi

Parshuram and Anr. Vs the State through