Dismissed

Krishna @ Seena S/O Narayanappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2022CRL.RP/2260/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition, the Karnataka High Court declined to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337, and 304(A) of the IPC. The Court affirmed the lower courts' findings based on eyewitness testimony and applied the principle of _res ipsa loquitor_, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision petition filed to set aside the judgment of conviction and confirmation order was dismissed.

Krishna @ Seena S/O Narayanappa Vs State of Karnataka — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 2260 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 2260 OF 2013 (397)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KRISHNA @ SEENA S/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT # 577, ESHWARA TEMPLE STREET, SUBRAYANAPET, CHICKABALLAPUR-562101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRASHANT F. GOUDAR., ADVOCATE & SRI. B. S. SRINIVAS RAO LEXICON)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RANEBENNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, RANEBENNUR-581 115, HAVERI DISTRICT. RPD BY SPP., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAXMI M BHAT Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. Date: 2022.12.13 16:08:51 +0530

¶15

(BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI., HCGP., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2013 PASSED BY THE II-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN CRL.A.NO.44/2011 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 29.07.2011 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & I-ADDL. JMFC, RANEBENNUR IN C.C.NO.1187/1999 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

CRL.RP No. 2260 of 2013

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.07.2011 in C.C.No.1187/1999 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and I Additional JMFC, Ranebennur and also its confirmation order dated 20.07.2013 in Crl. A. No.44/2011, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur).

¶22

2. Brief facts of the case thus;

¶23

It is alleged in the charge sheet that, the appellant being the driver of the lorry bearing No.MYT-599 was driving the lorry on the P.B. Road near Kamadod cross in front of Tungabhadra Noolina Girani (Mill) from Harihar side to Ranebenur side, in a rash and negligent manner, and thereby the said lorry has been overturned. As a result, the cleaner of the lorry Aswath Narayanswamy and Neelappa Nagappa Honnakkalavar died at the spot and three persons have sustained injuries. The police have registered the case for the offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC and conducted investigation. After investigation, filed the charge sheet.

¶24

¶25

CRL.RP No. 2260 of 2013

¶26

To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.7 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC.

¶27

Heard Sri. Prashant F. Goudar and Sri. B.S.Srinivas

¶28

Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Ramesh B. Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader for State.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the judgment of conviction and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court are contrary to the facts and law and hence, both are required to be set aside.

¶30

It is further submitted that, the evidence of eyewitnesses and also injured witnesses discloses that, the accused was driving a lorry in a rash and negligent manner and made the lorry to be turned turtle. Resultantly, the injuries caused to the inmates and also two persons have died. But, none of the witnesses have stated that, the accused was driving the lorry in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, it cannot be said that, the accused has committed negligence and caused the accident. Hence, the

¶31

¶32

CRL.RP No. 2260 of 2013

¶33

concurrent findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts are required to be set aside.

¶34

Per contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader, justifying the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the both the Courts submits that, in fact, the impact of the accident shows the negligence of the driver. Due to the said accident, the inmates who were traveling in the said lorry have suffered several injuries and two persons have died. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶35

It is further submitted that, the evidence of PW.3, PW.4 and PW.7 clearly indicates that, the lorry was being driven in a high speed and in rash and negligent manner and thereby caused accident and the said accident resulting to death of two persons and sever injuries to three more persons. It is further submitted that, the accused has not offered any explanation for the accident. Therefore, it is necessary to invoke section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The said provision defines that, the burden of proving the facts, especially within the knowledge, is upon a person who was driving the vehicle on the particular day and time.

¶36

¶37

CRL.RP No. 2260 of 2013

¶38

It is further submitted that, the accused was driving the vehicle as on the date of the incident. It has been proved and not disputed. Therefore, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC.

¶39

It is further submitted that, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court based on the evidence of eye witnesses and also the attending circumstances, hence, the interference of this Court with the conviction recorded by the Trial court is unwarranted. Having said thus, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the revision petition.

¶40

After having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also on perusing the records, it appears that, the lorry was being driven by the accused. PW.7 is the complainant who has deposed that, at about 7-8 years ago, when he was coming to Tungabhadra Noolina Girani (Weaving Mill) in a lorry bearing it’s registration No.MYT-599, when the lorry came near Kamadod cross, the driver of the lorry was driving it, in a high speed and rash and negligent manner, ecen though the request made by PW.7 to drive slowly and carefully. In spite of request made by PW.7, the accused was negligent and was driving it in a high speed, resultantly, the vehicle has

¶41

¶42

CRL.RP No. 2260 of 2013

¶43

turned turtle three times due to its uncontrollable condition. As a result of the said accident, PW.7 said to have sustained injuries to his knee and also bleeding injuries to his leg. He further stated that, he has not identified the accused as he had not seen the driver on the alleged date of incident. PW.3 is also an inmate of the lorry has stated that, the said accident was occurred on 10-12 years ago. In the said accident, he stated to have sustained injuries to his head, teeth etc., but he did not identified the accused. PW.4 reiterated the said facts regarding the accident. However, he identified the accused. Even though, he has stated that, the lorry was being driven in a high speed, in the cross-examination he has not stated the exact speed of the lorry. Therefore, the evidence of PW.4 cannot be brushed aside merely he could not assess the speed of the vehicle. PW.5 who is the PSI of Halageri Police Station has registered the case in Crime No.127/1998 and registered the said FIR and the said FIR was sent to the Magistrate. Though the prosecution examined PW.3, PW.4 and PW.7 who are the eye-witnesses to the incident, PW.3 and PW.7 have not identified the accused. However, PW.4 identified the accused. Therefore, the evidence of PW.4 is relevant and the same has not been discredited.

¶44

¶45

CRL.RP No. 2260 of 2013

¶46

Therefore, the evidence of PW.4 is believable with respect to identity of the accused.

¶47

It is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana¹ wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in para Nos.1, 12 and 13, has held thus:-

¶48

“1. When automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic.

¶49

12. In State of Karnataka Vs. Krishna, (1987) 1 SCC 538, this Court did not allow a sentence of fine, imposed on a driver who was convicted under Section 304-A IPC to remain in force although the High Court too had confirmed the said sentence when an accused was convicted of the offence of driving a bus callously and

¶50

1 (2000) 5 SCC 82

¶51

¶52

CRL.RP No. 2260 of 2013

¶53

causing the death of a human being. In that case this Court enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months besides imposing a fine.

¶54

13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the P.O. Act. While considering the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance think that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly, that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape from jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles”.

¶55

¶56

CRL.RP No. 2260 of 2013

¶57

A careful perusal of the above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that, the accident occurred because of negligence of the accused. It is to be noted here that the principles of “ res ipso laquitor”, theory is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court are appropriate. Therefore, this Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts.

¶58

Hence, I proceed to pass the following;

¶59

ORDER

¶60

The Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed .

¶61

Sd/- JUDGE

¶62

PJ, BSS

Krishna @ Seena S/O Narayanappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna @ Seena S/O Narayanappa v. 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

Durgappa Vs the State by Psi

Manjula W/O. Kolibasappa Vs Kolibasappa @ Kolidoddabasappa

Girish S/O Shivarayappa Shetasanadi Vs Basavantappa S/O Adiveppa Daddikoppa

Smt. Meena W/O Mahesh Khona Vs Sri Anwar S/O Shabbir Contractor

State of Karnataka, Vs Raju @ Kirankumar

The State Vs Ismail Khan