Dismissed

Lingaraju S/O Basappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Jun 2022CRL.RP/483/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed criminal revision petition challenging conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death. Court held that unchallenged eyewitness testimony and accident report established guilt, finding no merit to revision.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; petitioner directed to surrender and serve sentence within 45 days.

Lingaraju S/O Basappa Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.483 OF 2012

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Lingaraju S/o. Basappa Aged 43 years Residing at Chikkanayaka's Street Kollegal Town Chamarajanagara District.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri. Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, Amicus Curiae )

¶10

AND:

¶11

State of Karnataka, By Kolelgala Town P.S. Rep. by S.P.P. High Court Buildings Bangalore - 560 001.

¶12

.. Respondent

¶13

(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, High Court Govt. Pleader)

¶14

¶15

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 (II) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the judgment passed in C.C.No.45/2009 dated 25-11-2010 by Civil

¶16

Crl.R.P.No.483/2012

¶17

¶18

Judge (Sr.Dvn.) & JMFC, at Kollegal and confirmed by Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.49/2010 at Kollegal and acquit from all the charges punishable under Section 279, 304-A IPC awarded by Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.) & JMFC at Kollegal in C.C.No.45/2009 dated 25-11-2010 and confirmed by Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.49/2010 dated 09-03-2012 including the fine amount, in the interest of justice.

¶19

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Final Hearing, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The present petitioner was accused in C.C.No.45/2009, in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kollegala, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Trial Court”), who, by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 25-11-2010 of the Trial Court, was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the IPC”) and was sentenced accordingly.

¶22

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.49/2010, in the Court of the learned

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.483/2012 3

¶24

Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track, Kollegal, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “the Sessions Judge's Court”), which, after hearing both side, dismissed the appeal, confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court. It is challenging the judgments passed by both the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge's Court, the accused/revision petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

¶25

The summary of the case of the prosecution in the Trial Court was that, on the date 05-04-2008, at about 6:00 p.m., on Kollegala-Mysore Road, in front of M/s. Anitha Tiles Depot, within the limits of complainant Police Station, the Motor Cycle bearing registration No.CKI-4501 being ridden by the accused in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KA-10/J-6470 that was being ridden by the deceased Rajappa, who was going towards Mudigunda village and caused the road traffic accident, in

¶26

¶27

Crl.R.P.No.483/2012

¶28

which, the deceased Rajappa sustained injuries and succumbed to it in the Hospital, while under treatment and thereby has committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC.

¶29

The accused appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter through his counsel. The accused pleaded not guilty. As such, in order to prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all eleven (11) witnesses from PW-1 to PW-11 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-10. However, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked on behalf of the accused.

¶30

The respondent - State is being represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶31

The Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court's records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

¶32

¶33

Crl.R.P.No.483/2012

¶34

In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the revision petitioner (accused) failed to appear before this Court on several dates of hearing, this Court by its reasoned order dated 22-06-2022, appointed learned counsel -

¶35

Sri. Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, as the Amicus Curiae for the revision petitioner/accused, to represent him in this case.

¶36

Learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/revision petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State are physically appearing in the Court.

¶37

Heard the learned counsels from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts and also the Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court's records.

¶38

For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶39

Crl.R.P.No.483/2012 6

¶40

After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is:

¶41

Whether the concurrent finding recorded by the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge's Court that, the accused committed the alleged offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?

¶42

Learned Amicus Curiae for the revision

¶43

petitioner/accused, in his argument submitted that, he would not deny or dispute the occurrence of the road traffic accident on the date, time and place mentioned in the charge, the involvement of the two Motor Cycles mentioned in the charge, death of deceased Rajappa, due to the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident and also the fact that the accused was riding the Motor Cycle bearing registration No. CKI-4501 at that time. He submits that, however, he strongly

¶44

Crl.R.P.No.483/2012 7

¶45

disputes that there was any rash and negligent riding of the Motor Cycle on the part of the accused and that the prosecution has proved the alleged guilt against the accused. He further submits that the presence of PW-2, the sole eye witness to the incident, at the spot of the accident, is highly doubtful. He also submits that the non-examination of the Motor Vehicle Inspector is also fatal to the case of the prosecution.

¶46

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent submits that, no doubt, PW-2 alone is the eye witness, who has supported the case of the prosecution regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the alleged offences. He submits that, however, the evidence of PW-2 is trustworthy and has withstood the successful crossexamination, as such, inspires confidence to believe the same. He also submits that the undisputed fact like occurrence of road traffic accident, involvement of two Motor Cycles as

¶47

¶48

Crl.R.P.No.483/2012

¶49

mentioned in the charge sheet and the death of deceased Rajappa having been corroborated by the evidence of PW-2 proves the alleged guilt against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubts.

¶50

Among the eleven witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-4, the wife of the deceased Rajappa, PW-6 - mother of the deceased are admittedly hear-say witnesses. However, their evidence that the deceased Rajappa died in the road traffic accident which took place on the date 05-04-2008, near Anitha Tiles Depot, is not in dispute.

¶51

PW-8 - Umesh, the brother-in-law of the deceased Rajappa, though has spoken about the death of Rajappa in the road traffic accident, however, he too is a hear-say witness and has spoken nothing about the involvement of the accused in the occurrence of the said road traffic accident.

¶52

PW-9 - Shantharaju was also projected as an eye witness to the incident and also as the person shifting the

¶53

Crl.R.P.No.483/2012 9

¶54

injured to the Hospital, however, except stating that he has seen the dead body of deceased Rajappa who died in the road traffic accident, the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution any further.

¶55

PW-1 - Kumara is a pancha for the scene of offence panchanama. Though he has supported the case of the prosecution in his examination-in-chief and got marked the scene of offence panchanama at Ex.P-1, however, in his crossexamination, he has stated that he does not know the contents of the said panchanama to which he has signed in the Police Station.

¶56

The other two witnesses, i.e. PW-3 - Shanmukha and PW-5 -Shivakumar were projected as the panchas to the inquest panchanama at Ex.P-3. Among them, PW-3 has fully supported the case of the prosecution, whereas PW-5 has not. PW-3 has stated that according to panchanama, the death of the deceased was due to the road traffic accident. Since

¶57

Crl.R.P.No.483/2012 10

¶58

PW-3 was not cross-examined from the accused's side, his evidence has remained un-denied.

¶59

After the above witnesses who have marginally supported the case of the prosecution, the main witness upon whom the prosecution mainly banked upon was, PW-2 - the complainant. The said witness, in his examination-in-chief has stated that on the date of the alleged incident, he was present at the place of accident, which was in front of Anitha Tiles Depot, on a National High Way, and at that time, he saw a Motor Cycle coming from Mudigunda side towards Kollegala and the rider of the motor cycle was riding it in high speed and with negligence. Having come in such a manner, the said vehicle dashed to the motor bike in which the deceased Rajappa was travelling. Immediately, he shifted Rajappa to Government Hospital, where he died. In that connection, he has lodged a complaint with the Police, which he has identified at Ex.P-2. He has identified the accused in the Court, stating

¶60

Crl.R.P.No.483/2012 11

¶61

that he was the rider of the offending Motor Cycle, which dashed against the Motor Cycle of the deceased Rajappa.

¶62

In his cross-examination, he adhered to his original version and has given more details as to why he was near the place of the accident, at the time of accident.

¶63

Since the witness has stated that there were no shops nearby the Anitha Tiles Depot, the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner/accused submitted in his argument that there was no reason for PW-2 to be present near the place of the accident. Since the witness (PW-2) knows the deceased, he has come and given a false evidence, as such, his evidence is not trustworthy.

¶64

No doubt, PW-2, in his cross-examination has stated that there were no shops nearby the place of the accident, but, by that itself, it cannot be disbelieved that PW-2 ought not to have been there. It is not necessary that a person's presence

¶65

Crl.R.P.No.483/2012 12

¶66

can be inferred only when there are shops nearby a particular

¶67

place which he has visited.

¶68

In the instant case, PW-2, has, in his cross-examination, made it clear that, he was not near the spot of the accident, waiting for his friend, but he has stated to the Police that he had been there for his personal work. The said statement of PW-2 was not further denied or disputed in his crossexamination. Therefore, the witness, apart from stating in his examination-in-chief that, he was there at the spot of the accident, has also shown the reason for his presence at the spot of the accident, which reason given by him has remained un-denied, as such, the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner (accused) that the presence of PW-2 in the spot of the accident, is doubtful, is not acceptable.

¶69

PW-2, in his evidence has stated that, the Motor Cycle that was being ridden by the accused was coming in high speed and in a negligent manner. He has specifically

¶70

Crl.R.P.No.483/2012 13

¶71

attributed both speed and negligence on the part of the rider of the Motor Cycle (accused). In his cross-examination, the said evidence of the witness that the accused was riding the Motor Cycle at high speed and in a negligent manner, has not been specifically denied. A general suggestion to the effect that the accident has occurred not at the fault of the accused, was made to the witness, however, the witness has not admitted the same as true. Thus, the specific statement of attributing some overt act on the part of the accused that he was riding the Motor Cycle in a rash and negligent manner, has remained specifically un-denied and un-disputed.

¶72

The Motor Vehicles Accident Report which is marked at Ex.P-10 shows that, the front wheel mud guard, right side foot rest and the crash guard of the two wheeler of the deceased were got damaged, where as, the right side foot rest, hand bar, crash guard and front indicators of the Motor Cycle of the accused were damaged, which means, the right

¶73

¶74

Crl.R.P.No.483/2012

¶75

side front portion of the offending vehicle has got damaged, so also, the right side front portion of the deceased's vehicle also has got damaged. According to PW-2, the Motor Cycle of accused dashed to the Motor Cycle of the deceased, which vehicle was coming from the opposite direction.

¶76

According to the rough sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer, which is at Ex.P-9, the accident in question has taken place at a spot which was 27 ft. away from left side of the road on the direction in which the Motor Cycle of the accused was going towards Kollegala. The distance between the side of the road and the spot of accident on the other side of the road was only 3 feet where the Motor Cycle of the deceased was moving from Kollegala towards Chamarajanagar side. This sketch corroborates the evidence of PW-2 that the Motor Cycle coming from Chamarajanagara direction and moving towards Kollegala, dashed to the Motor Cycle of the deceased which was coming from opposite direction. It is for the said reason, the vehicle

¶77

¶78

Crl.R.P.No.483/2012

¶79

of the accused is shown to have gone to its extreme right, crossing the mid line of the road, thus there is 27 ft. distance from the side of the road to the place of accident in the direction towards Kollegala, in which direction the accused was riding on his Motor Cycle. Thus, on the road which was of 30 ft. width, the deceased was going on its extreme left side, leaving 3 ft. distance on his left side.

¶80

The above is further corroborated by the Motor Vehicles Accident Report, which also, as analysed and observed above, shows that the right side of both the Motor Cycles, more particularly of the accused, has sustained damages. This also corroborates the evidence of PW-2 that the accused's Motor Cycle went to its extreme right and dashed to the Motor Cycle of the deceased coming from the opposite side. Thus, it has resulted in damage to the right front portion of the vehicle of the accused so also that of the deceased.

¶81

Crl.R.P.No.483/2012 16

¶82

No doubt, the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner (accused) has contended that the Motor Vehicle Inspector was not examined in the case by the prosecution. But, Ex.P-10 marked on behalf of the prosecution in the evidence of the Investigating Officer, has not been denied or disputed and the contents of Ex.P-10 also have not been denied or disputed.

¶83

In such a circumstance, merely because of the Motor Vehicle Inspector is not examined would not prevent from accepting Ex.P-10, the contents of which are also not disputed. Therefore, the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner (accused) on the point, is also not acceptable.

¶84

Lastly, the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner contended that, the rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

¶85

Crl.R.P.No.483/2012 17

¶86

As already observed above, PW-2 has specifically stated that the accused was riding his Motor Cycle at a high speed and in a negligent manner. The said statement of PW-2 has remained un-denied and un-disputed. Further, Ex.P-10 - the Motor Vehicles Accident Report shows that the right side of the vehicle of the accused has sustained damages. The sketch at Ex.P-9 shows that the vehicle of the accused has gone to its extreme right almost nearer to the right side margin of the road just 3 ft. away from it. Thus from the spot of the accident itself, it shows that the accused had no reason to go upto a stretch of 27 ft. from the left side of the road and dash to another Motor Cycle coming from the opposite direction. Had the accused been not in high speed or riding the vehicle in a negligent manner, the accident in question would not have happened. Thus the evidence of

¶87

PW-2 that the accused was riding his Motor Cycle at a high speed and in a negligent manner stands corroborated by the

¶88

¶89

Crl.R.P.No.483/2012

¶90

documentary evidence at Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10 and establishes rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused.

¶91

The death of deceased Rajappa was due to the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident, is not denied or disputed. PW-7 - Doctor, who conducted autopsy of deceased Rajappa, has also stated in his evidence that, after conducting the Post-Mortem Examination, he issued a report as per Ex.P-5. The said Post-Mortem Examination Report which has remained un-denied and un-disputed would go to show that the deceased Rajappa among other injures had also sustained a comminuted fracture of the right parietal bone which was depressed into the brain matter. The Doctor has opined that the death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of head injury sustained consequent upon the road traffic accident. Therefore, it is clearly established that the death of deceased Rajappa was

¶92

¶93

Crl.R.P.No.483/2012

¶94

due to the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident, as narrated by PW-2.

¶95

It is considering these aspects and appreciating and analysing the materials placed before them in their proper perspective, since both the Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court have held the accused guilty of the alleged offences and have prescribed the sentence proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by both the courts.

¶96

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶97

O R D E R

¶98

[i] The Criminal Revision Petition stands

¶99

dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶100

[ii] The revision petitioner/accused to surrender before the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kollegala, within forty-five (45) days from today and to serve the sentence.

¶101

Crl.R.P.No.483/2012

¶102

¶103

The Court, while acknowledging the services rendered by Sri. Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi - the learned Amicus Curiae for the revision petitioner (accused), recommends honorarium of a sum of not less than `4,000/- payable to him by the Registry.

¶104

Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the Trial Court and also the Sessions Judge's Court along with their respective records, forthwith, for doing needful in the matter.

¶105

Sd/JUDGE

¶106

BMV*

Lingaraju S/O Basappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lingaraju S/O Basappa 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nandeesha v Vs Sri Seenappa S

Simhadri Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Saral Babu Vs Sri Kodanda

State by S P Vs Sri T Srinivasa

Sri. H D Ganganna Vs Sri. Ramesh M @ Ramesh Mohan

Mr Abdul Subhan S/O Abdul Majeed Vs the State of Karnataka