Dismissed

Ashok Sarapure S/O. Mayappa Sarapure v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2022CRL.RP/100124/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed criminal revision praying to set aside conviction and sentence for rash and negligent driving causing death. Court held concurrent findings were justifiable and affirmed lower court orders under IPC Sections 279, 337, and 304(A).

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision petition dismissed; impugned judgment of conviction and sentence confirmed.

Ashok Sarapure S/O. Mayappa Sarapure Vs the State of… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100124 OF 2014

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

ASHOK SARAPURE S/O. MAYAPPA SARAPURE, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BELAVI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶6

...PETITIONER (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE., ADVOCATE)

¶7

AND:

¶8

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HUKKERI POLICE, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENT

¶9

(BY SRI. M. H. PATIL, AGA)

¶10

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAXMI M BHAT Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. Date: 2022.12.13 16:08:28 +0530

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 02-04-2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM AT CHIKODI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.68/2011, THEREBY DISMISISING THE APPEALL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 25-6-2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, AT HUKKERI IN C.C. NO.282/2010 THEREBY CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE U/S. 279, 337 & 304 (A) OF IPC.

¶12

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 17.10.2022, THIS DAY, THE .COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 25.06.2011 in CC No.282/2010 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hukkeri and its confirmation order dated 02.04.2014 in Crl.A. No.68/2011 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge., Belagavi, sitting at Chikkodi.

¶16

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶17

On 14.02.2010, at about 7:00 p.m. near S. K. College main gate, on Court Circle-Bus stand road, the accused being the rider of the motorcycle bearing its registration No.KA-49/H9707 was driving his motorcycle from Hukkeri Bus Stand side

¶18

to Court Circle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endangering the human life and personal safety of others in a high speed, dashed against the father of the complainant. The father of the complainant died at the KLE Hospital, Belagavi and the pillion rider of the said vehicle sustained injuries. A complaint was lodged by the complainant. The police registered the case in Crime No.44/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. The police conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet.

¶19

¶20

To prove the case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses i.e., PW.1 to PW.10 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. On the other side, the accused neither examined any evidence nor marked any document.

¶21

The Trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC and maximum punishment was imposed for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC is six months and fine of Rs.2,500/-. Being aggrieved by the said conviction, the accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner.

¶22

Heard Sri. Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. M.H.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent.

¶23

Sri. Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Sessions Court is contrary to the facts and law. Therefore, the judgments are liable to be set aside.

¶24

¶25

It is further submitted that, the Trial Court after considering the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 who are the interested and related witnesses. Even though, the said incident has taken place in the busy road, no independent witnesses have been cited in the charge sheet. P.W. 5 who is the pillion rider of the motorcycle has stated that the accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased. It is further submitted that, even though the accident had not taken place, the motorcycle has been falsely implicated in this case. The spot panchanama states that the motorcycle was lying on the spot itself, which creates doubt and the benefit of the doubt ought to have been given to the accused. This creates doubt and the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused.

¶26

Per contra, Sri. M. H. Patil, learned Additional

¶27

Government Advocate submits that, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have appreciated the evidence in proper prospective, therefore, the conviction is passed, which is proper and contains no illegality or perversity.

¶28

It is further submitted by the learned counsel that,

¶29

the evidence of PW.3 and 4, who are the eye witnesses to the

¶30

¶31

incident are relevant. These witnesses along with the deceased were coming home after finishing the morning walk. Ex.P.3 is the spot panchanama and Ex.P.4 is the hand sketch map which indicates that the accident has occurred on the wrong side to the motorcyclist and it is caused because of his sheer negligence.

¶32

It is further submitted that, PW.7 is a Motor Vehicle

¶33

Inspector. On examination, opined that there were no mechanical defects in the vehicle. As such, it is considered that the accident occurred due to negligence. Therefore, the concurrent findings of the subordinate Courts are correct and relevant.

¶34

After hearing the learned counsel for the respective

¶35

parties and perusing the documents on record, the points which arise for my consideration are:

¶36

a. Whether the concurrent finding of conviction passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are justifiable?

¶37

b. Whether the petitioner has made out grounds to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact

¶38

¶39

rendered by the Trial Court and Appellate Court

¶40

in convicting the accused ?

¶41

To answer the above points, it is necessary to have

¶42

a look on the evidence of eye-witnesses. It is the case of the prosecution that, PW.1 has lodged the complaint stating that on 14.02.2010 at about 5:00 p.m., his father had been to morning walk. At about 7:00 p.m., he has received a message from PW.3 stating that his father had met with an accident. PW.1 rushed to the spot and shifted his father to the KLE Hospital, Belagavi and later, he shifted his father to another hospital at Belagavi. By the time, his father was declared as dead. The cause of death is due to injuries. Therefore, PW1 reported the same to the jurisdictional police.

¶43

The Trial Court mainly relied on the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4, they have been accompanied the deceased for walking. According to PW.3, himself, PW4 and the deceased were coming after completing the walking towards their house on the left side of the road. A motorcyclist came in an opposite direction and hit the deceased. As a result, the deceased had sustained injuries and later he died in the hospital. The accident occurred due to negligence of the motorcyclist/accused. The

¶44

¶45

same has been reiterated by PW.4. The evidence of these two witnesses is trustworthy and believable. Except, suggestions of denial made by the accused, there are no reasons to disbelieve their evidence and their presence as eyewitnesses to the accident is has not been denied.

¶46

Ex.P.4 - rough sketch reveals that the accident had occurred at the extreme left side of the road towards Hukkeri Bus stand. On perusal of the said rough sketch, it appears that the accident had occurred not in the middle of the road, but, it is on the extreme right side of the motorcyclist which he was not supposed to move that side, if the proper caution could have taken by the motorcyclist.

¶47

PW.5 is a scribe of the complaint. PW.2 has drawn mahazar on 15.02.2010 near S.K. College Gate which is marked as Ex.P.4. According to him, the width of the road is 18 feet, the road contains 5 feet, mud road on either side. The accident has occurred on the edge of the Tar road. PW.9 who is the owner of the motorcycle has stated that accused was riding the motorcycle on the date of accident fortifies the involvement of the accused.

¶48

¶49

It is relevant to refer the principle of res ipsa loquitur put forwarded by J. Baron Pollock in Byrne Vs. Boadle the res ipsa loquitur literally means “Things speaks itself” prima facie it appears to be simple and easy maxim to understand and apply. However, it is not as simple as it is appears to be. When this principle is applied the burden of proof will be shifted to the accused to disprove the same. Once the burden shifted to the accused, there is a presumption of negligence on the part of the accused until it is disproved by him.

¶50

It is also relevant to note that, the alleged accident has taken place on the negligence of the accused. The place of occurrence itself indicates the act of negligence committed by the accused. A finding of criminal rashness and criminal negligence is to be arrived at by the Court on the material available on record and also the evidence relied by the prosecution and also surrounding circumstances.

¶51

The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have rightly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a conclusion that, the accused has committed an offence under Section 279 and 304-

¶52

¶53

A and 337 of IPC. Therefore, interference with the said finding is unwarranted and I am of the considered opinion that, interference with the finding of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court is unwarranted.

¶54

In view of the aforementioned discussions, the points which arose for my consideration answered as point No.1 in the ‘affirmative’ and point No.2 in the ‘negative’. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶57

(ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.06.2011 in CC No. 282/2010 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hukkeri and its confirmation order dated 02.04.2014 in Crl.A. No.68/2011 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge., Belagavi, sitting at Chikkodi, are confirmed.

¶58

Sd/- JUDGE

¶59

Ashok Sarapure S/O. Mayappa Sarapure v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Sarapure S/O. Mayappa Sarapure 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

Shri Govind Raj Belli S/O Gundappa Vs Shri K Guddappa S/O K Ningappa

Ganesh Laxminarayan Markod, Vs Venkatesh S/O Hanamanthappa Kandkur

Chandrahas Bhatt Vs Subhas S/O. Virupakshappa

State of Karnataka Vs Jayapal S/O N. Jamakhandi

Ramanna Vs State of Karnataka

Shobha W/O Majunath Abbigeri Vs Manjunath S/O Shivanangouda Abbigeri