High Court rejected perversity challenge regarding conviction in vehicular death case but held original sentence for culpable homicide not amounting to murder excessive, reducing it to six months.
Sentence of imprisonment for 304-A IPC reduced to six months; other findings and sentences confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 683 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
N.R. Girish S/o. Ramaswamy, Aged about 25 years, R/o. Nerlige Village, Javagal Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District-573 125. …..Petitioner
(By Sri.A.V. Gangadharappa, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka, Banavara Police Station – 573 112. …..Respondent
(By Sri. Thejesh P, HCGP)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.12.2010 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere in C.C. No.708/2008 and the Judgment and order dated 20.06.2013 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan in Crl.A.No.1/2011 and Acquit the petitioner of the charges levelled against him.
CRL.R.P. NO.683/2013
2
This Criminal Revision Petition having been heard through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing and reserved on 28.01.2021, coming on for pronouncement of orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The present petitioner was accused in C.C.No.708/2008, in
the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C at Arasikere, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “trial Court”). By its judgment dated 14.12.2010, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “IPC”) and Sections 184 and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “M.V. Act”) and was sentenced accordingly.
3
CRL.R.P. NO.683/2013
sustained grievous injuries. The rider of the motor cycle ran away from the spot. Though the injured was immediately taken to a hospital at Banavara and then to NIMHANS at Bengaluru, however, on the way to NIMHANS hospital, he succumbed to injuries at 9.30 on the same night. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle, as such, he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “IPC” and Sections 184 and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 (hereinafter for brevity, referred to as “MV Act”).
CRL.R.P. NO.683/2013
4
5
“Whether the impugned judgments suffer from perversity, illegality, impropriety warranting any interference at the hands of this Court”.
CRL.R.P. NO.683/2013
6
of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA.13.S.2834 in the said accident and one Sri. Thimmappa sustaining injuries in the said road traffic accident and succumbing to it, has not been specifically denied or disputed from the accused’s side in the cross-examination of any of the prosecution witnesses. On the other hand, in the cross-examination of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 and PW.11 and PW.12, suggestions were made from the accused’s side to the respective witnesses suggesting that road traffic accident has occurred due to a fall of the deceased Thimmappa on the alleged date. Thus, by specifically suggesting to these witnesses about the occurrence of the road traffic accident and Sri. Thimmappa sustaining injuries in the said road traffic accident, the accused has admitted occurrence of the road traffic accident and involvement of motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA.13.S.2834 and also Thimmappa sustaining injuries in the said road traffic accident.
CRL.R.P. NO.683/2013
7
the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, have stated that, in the road traffic accident, due to dashing of the motor cycle to the pedestrian Thimmappa, he sustained multiple injuries. No doubt, PW.2 and PW.3 have stated in their evidence that immediately after the accident, when they saw the injured Thimmappa, they did not notice any bleeding injury. By that itself, it cannot be inferred that PW.2 and PW.3 were not the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident or that the deceased did not sustain injuries in the accident. Further, PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 in their evidence also stated that, immediately after the
CRL.R.P. NO.683/2013
8
accident, since they had witnessed the accident being present in the spot, had shifted the injured to the hospital at Banavara. Further, PW.1 being the nephew of the deceased, has stated that, as per the Doctor’s advise, the injured Thimmappa was also shifted to the Government Hospital at Hassan and from there, as per the medical advise, he was being taken to NIMHANS in Bengaluru, in an ambulance. However, on the way, near Channarayapatna, the injured succumbed to the injuries, as such he was taken to Government Hospital at Channarayapatna, where the Doctor declared him as dead. The said narration of the details of shifting the injured to different hospitals and he succumbing to the injuries sustained in the accident since has not been specifically denied in his cross-examination, the said evidence and also the evidence of PW.7-Doctor and the Post Mortem report at Ex.P5 clearly go to establish that the deceased Thimmappa died due to the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.
CRL.R.P. NO.683/2013
9
10
accident and after committing the accident, he ran away from the place.
Similarly, PW-2 also has stated that he was also near the spot of the accident sitting on a wooden bench beneath a baniyan tree which was in the bus stop of Kankerehalli village. He too has stated that it was the accused only who rode his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and ran away from the place after causing the accident. He has given some more details that after the accident, people gathered there though caught hold of the accused and started beating him, still, the accused could able to escape from them.
PW-3 also has stated that at the time of accident, he was waiting in the bus stand in order to go to Banavara, as such, he saw the occurrence of the accident. He too has stated that it was due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the accused, the accident in question has happened. He has also stated that accused ran away from the place after the accident.
11
one who has caused the accident. More importantly, PW-11 Basavaraju, who undisputedly is the pillion rider of the motorcycle has specifically stated that he was the pillion rider on the motorcycle which was being ridden by the accused. He has maintained the same stand that accused was riding the motorcycle at the time of accident. However, he contends that accident that took place was not at the fault of the rider of the motorcycle, but, it was at the fault of the deceased who was trying to cross the road. His statement that he was the pillion rider and accused was riding the motorcycle at the time of accident has not been denied in the cross-examination.
In addition to the above, the Investigating Officer i.e., PW-12 in his evidence has also stated that on 8.1.2008, the accused himself appeared before him in the police station and confessed, as such, he arrested him and later enlarged him on bail. The said evidence of PW-11 that the accused was riding the motorcycle, wherein he was the pillion rider and
12
the evidence of PW-12 that accused voluntarily surrendered before him, further confirms and proves beyond doubt that it was the accused and accused alone who was riding the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no certainty regarding who caused the accident is not acceptable.
13
of the tar road from 15' x 20'. PW-3 also has stated that the width of the tar road was about 12' x 13'.
CRL.R.P. NO.683/2013
14
Ex.P-3 which mahazar was shown to have been drawn on 3.1.2008, whereas, in the FIR submitted to the learned Magistrate on 1.1.2008, the details of the vehicle is mentioned as such, it is clear that the said vehicle must have been in the police station at the time of registration of the case. But, the said argument is not acceptable for the reason that the complainant who is the eye witness to the accident has given the registration number of the motorcycle, which according to him, has caused the accident, in his complaint itself. It is based on the said complaint, a mention about the registration number of the vehicle in FIR is made. It is not mandatory that before mentioning the alleged offending vehicle's registration number in the FIR, the said vehicle should necessarily be seized by the investigating agency. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner on the said point is also not acceptable.
15
the other hand, the evidence of prosecution witnesses, including the evidence of eye witnesses, panch witnesses, the doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who has examined the vehicle and given his report as per Ex.P-6, would clearly go to establish that a road traffic accident as alleged in the charge sheet has occurred solely due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the accused and that there was no mechanical defect at the time of the accident. It is further proved beyond reasonable doubt that in the said accident, deceased Thimmappa sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to it. It is after analysis of materials placed before them in its proper perspective, both the trial Court, as well the Sessions Judge's Court have uniformly held that the prosecution has proved the alleged guilt against the accused. As such, I do not find any perversity, illegality or irregularity in the said finding warranting interference at the hands of this Court convicting the accused for the alleged offences.
16
However, the sentence ordered for the proven guilt when verified, it is found that for the offence under Section 279 IPC, the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of 1,000/and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days and for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of thirty days and for the offences under Sections 184 and 187 of M.V.Act, the accused was imposed with fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.
17
ordered for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and Sections 184 and 187 of M.V.Act appears to be reasonable and proportionate to the proven guilt, whereas, the sentence of one year imprisonment ordered for the proven guilt punishable under Section 304-A of IPC appears to be slightly on the higher side in the circumstances of the case. As such, it is only for modifying the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused for the proven guilt punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, interference by this Court is warranted.
The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in-part. The sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC is reduced and confined to six months simple imprisonment. Rest of the findings of the trial Court, which was further confirmed by the Sessions Judge's Court, holding the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 279 of IPC and Sections
CRL.R.P. NO.683/2013
18
184 and 187 of M.V.Act, and also the sentence ordered,
except what is modified as above, stands confirmed.
Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the trial Court as also the Sessions Judge’s Court along with their respective records forthwith.
Sd/JUDGE
KGR*/bk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgments in the conviction of the accused for rash and negligent driving causing death suffer from perversity, illegality, or impropriety warranting interference.
Whether the sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC is proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
N.R. Girish
State of Karnataka
Dr. Justice H.B. Prabhakar Swamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
