Allowed

Rudresh Mahadevappa Sarvi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2023CRL.RP/100165/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner for rash and negligent driving causing death, ruling that concurrence of findings by trial and appellate courts was sustainable. Despite witness discrepancies regarding trailer detachment, the court found negligence inherent. The court granted probation under the Probation of Offenders Act.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; conviction maintained but benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 extended and petitioner released on probation.

Rudresh Mahadevappa Sarvi Vs the State of Karnataka — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.R.P. 100165/2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100165/2014

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

RUDRESH MAHADEVAPPA SARVI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NIDAGUNDIKOPPA, TQ.RON, GADAG DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY MS. RANJETA RADDI ALAGAWADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE)

AND

MAMATHA

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRSENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DHARWAD.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

Digitally signed by J MAMATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Date: 2023.02.17 14:33:31 +0530

¶17

(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING THAT THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG IN CRL.A.NO.5/2013 DATED 10.07.2014 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED II-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC II-COURT, GADAG, IN C.C.NO.142/2009 DATED 15.01.2013 BE SET ASIDE AND THE PETITIONER BE ACQUITTED BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING / VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING AND RESERVED ON 01.12.2022 AT DHARWAD BENCH,

¶20

¶21

Crl.R.P. 100165/2014

¶22

COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.01.2013 in C.C No.142/2009 on the file of learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Gadag and its confirmation judgment dated 10.07.2014 in Crl.A.No.5/2013 on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Gadag.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, the rankings of

¶26

the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

¶27

3. Brief facts of the case:

¶28

It is the case of the prosecution that, the accused was proceeding to Byadagi from Nidagundikoppa of Koppal Taluk in his tractor and trailer. The trailer was loaded with almost 80 to 90 bags of chilli and 21 passengers were

¶29

¶30

Crl.R.P. 100165/2014

¶31

sitting on the chilli bags who were the farmers and growers of chilli. It is stated that, the farmers were taking the chilli bags to the market for sale. It is stated that, during the midnight hour, on 29.01.2009 at about 12.45 a.m., the accused was driving the said tractor and trailer in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human lives and caused accident, resultantly, the said tractor and trailer got overturned. Consequently, the passengers on board fell down. Out of 21 passengers, 7 persons have sustained simple injuries, 2 persons have sustained grievous injuries and one person has died in the said accident. The police have registered the case against the accused for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 187, 197, 66 read with Section 192 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘IMV Act’).

¶32

The police after conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet for the offences stated supra. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution

¶33

¶34

Crl.R.P. 100165/2014

¶35

examined 24 witnesses and got marked 23 documents. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record convicted the accused for the offences stated supra. On appeal being filed by the accused, the Appellate Court modified the sentence and the operative portion of the order reads thus:

¶36

“The appeal is disposed off.

¶37

The impugned conviction order of the trial court is modified and appellant/accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence U/S 279 IPC in-default shall undergo S.I. for 10 days; he is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one month for offence U/S 337 IPC and to pay fine of RS.500/- in-default shall undergo S.I. for 5 days; the accused is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a term of 3 months for the offence U/S 338 IPC and to pay a fine Rs.1,000/- in-default he shall undergo S.I. for 10 days; further the accused is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a term of 9 months for the offence U/S 304-A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/in-default he shall undergo S.I. for 3 months; further the accused is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a term of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in-default he shall undergo S.I. for 5 days for the offence U/S 187 of MV Act; he is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a term of one month for the offence U/S 192-A of MV Act for the contravention of Sec. 66 of MV Act and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in-default shall undergo S.I. for one month and accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in-

¶38

¶39

Crl.R.P. 100165/2014

¶40

default shall undergo S.I. for 10 days for the offence U/S 187 of MV Act.”

¶41

5. Heard Ms.Ranjita Raddi Alagawadi, learned

¶42

counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.B.V.Somapur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Ramesh Chigari, learned HCGP appearing for State.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the concurrent findings recorded for conviction by both the Courts are erroneous and not appropriate, hence the same is liable to be set aside.

¶44

It is further submitted that, the trailer attached to the tractor got unhooked and the trailer detached from the tractor, consequently it had overturned. The same fact has been admitted by some of the witnesses. Inspite of the admissions made by the inmates of the trailer, the Trial Court did not consider the same and convicted the accused and the same is affirmed by the Appellate Court which is contrary to the evidence on record, hence, it is liable to be set aside.

¶45

¶46

Crl.R.P. 100165/2014

¶47

Per contra, the learned HCGP for the State submits that, the concurrent findings recorded for conviction by both the Courts are on the strength of appreciation of evidence and also the law, hence, it need not be interfered with.

¶48

It is further submitted that, the evidence of witnesses namely PW.4 to PW.6, PWs.8, 12 to 15 and 18 who are the passengers and eyewitnesses to the incident and they have identified the accused and supported the case. Their evidence in respect of rash and negligent driving is consistent and unblemished. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity committed by the sub-ordinate Courts in recording the conviction of the accused. Making such submissions, the learned HCGP prays to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner.

¶49

After having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents

¶50

¶51

Crl.R.P. 100165/2014

¶52

available on record, the points which arise for my consideration are,

¶53

i) Whether the concurrent findings

¶54

recorded for conviction by both the sub-ordinate

¶55

Courts are sustainable?

¶56

ii) Whether the petitioner has made out

¶57

grounds to interfere with the said concurrent findings recorded for conviction by both the subordinate Courts?

¶58

In order to analyse as to whether any illegality or perversity has crept into the findings of subordinate Courts in respect of conviction recorded, it is necessary to analyse the evidence of witnesses namely PWs.8, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 18 and also the evidence of PW.20 and PW.21, who are the medical officers said to have treated the injured and submitted the wound certificates as per Exs.P11 to P20.

¶59

¶60

Crl.R.P. 100165/2014

¶61

As could be seen from the evidence of the witnesses, there are two versions regarding the accident. PWs.8, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 18 have stated that, the accused was driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner in spite of instructions having been given to go slowly and caused accident. According to these witnesses, the accident had been caused due to negligence of the driver of the tractor. On the other hand, PWs.10, 11, 16 and 17 have stated that the trailer attached to the tractor got unhooked, as a result of which, the accident had occurred. PW.23 who is the Motor Vehicle Inspector has deposed that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defect. It is to be noted here that, the complainant and panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶62

Though some of the witnesses have deposed about the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the accused, on the contrary, some of the witnesses have deposed regarding the detachment of trailer from the

¶63

¶64

Crl.R.P. 100165/2014

¶65

tractor. Be that as it may, even assuming that the version of the witnesses regarding detachment of the trailer hook to be true, it was also considered as negligence on the part of the accused. It was his duty to take proper care when the trailer was being loaded with chilli bags and passengers. Therefore, the version of some of the witnesses regarding unhook of the trailer cannot be accepted and the defence of the accused that he was not negligent in his driving cannot be accepted.

¶66

Therefore, after analyzing the evidence of rival

¶67

witnesses, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have appreciated the evidence properly and convicted the accused accordingly. Therefore, the interference with the concurrent findings is unwarranted.

¶68

In the light of the observation made above, the points which arose for my consideration are answered as,

¶69

Point No.(i) in the “affirmative” and

¶70

Point No.(ii) in the “negative”.

¶71

¶72

Crl.R.P. 100165/2014

¶73

The learned counsel for the petitioner made alternative submission regarding the sentence. It is the submission of the learned counsel that, the accused is aged about 37 years and he is an agriculturist and his family members are depending upon him. Making such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PAUL GEORGE v. STATE OF NCT, Delhi¹ wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the benefit of Section 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and prays to extend the same in this case.

¶74

In the light of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also on careful reading of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is appropriate to extend the benefit of Section 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

¶75

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶76

1 (2008) 4 SCC 185

Crl.R.P. 100165/2014

ORDER

The petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of and the petitioner is extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and released on Probation of good conduct.

¶81

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶82

The Trial Court shall release him after due admonition and he shall be dealt with under Sections 4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

¶83

The Trial Court need not seek personal bond and the conviction maintained should not affect the service of the petitioner.

¶84

The Registry is directed to send the records to the Trial Court forthwith.

¶85

Bss

¶86

Sd/- JUDGE

Rudresh Mahadevappa Sarvi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudresh Mahadevappa Sarvi 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

Veerabhadrayya S/O. Basavannayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

Ibrahimsab Mabusab Karnachi Vs the State of Karnataka

Khaleel Ahmed S/O. Allah Bakash Vs M Nagarathna W/O. Late M Sanjappa

Siddanath S/O Tammanna Padagannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Parashuram @ Prashant Kallapa Kamble Vs State of Karnataka

Renuka Bai W/O R Raju, Vs R Raju S/O Ramanaik