Allowed

Raju S/O Padmavva Junjannanavar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2023CRL.RP/100167/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against a conviction for dangerous driving causing death, the High Court re-appreciated evidence. It found witnesses failed to prove rash or negligent driving or lorry parking violations. The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition allowed; Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside; Accused acquitted of offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC; Deposited amount refunded.

Raju S/O Padmavva Junjannanavar Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100167 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAJU S/O. PADMAVVA JUNJANNANAVAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: SIDDESWAR NAGAR, 2^ND CROSS, RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI T.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

ROHAN HADIMANI T

¶11

Digitally signed by ROHAN HADIMANI T Date: 2023.09.23 12:09:56 +0530

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CPI, RURAL POLICE STATION RANEBENNUR, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH DHARWAD.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.08.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.197/2012 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL J.M.F.C. RANEBENNUR.

¶17

IN THIS PETITION, ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD, JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR “PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS” THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Criminal Revision Petition is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of Sentence dated 24^th August, 2015 passed in C.C.No.197 of 2012 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Ranebennur which is confirmed by Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 12^th June, 2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2015 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur.

¶21

For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as per their status and rank before the trial Court.

¶22

The prosecution's case unfolds that during night hours on July 15^th , 2012, near the Hanumanahatti Railway Bridge on PB Road, well within the jurisdiction of the Ranebennur Rural Police Station. In the late hours, the accused was operating a TATA Ace Magic vehicle, bearing Registration No.KA-17/A-9300, proceeding from Haveri towards Harihara. It is alleged that during this journey, the accused drove the vehicle in a reckless and negligent manner, imperiling the lives of those sharing the

¶23

¶24

road. The culmination of this heedless conduct was a collision with a stationary lorry, identified by Registration No.KA-27-9207, situated on the left side of the thorough fare. This accident resulted in injuries to several occupants of the lorry, specifically identified as CWs.6 to 8, who sustained minor injuries but thankfully survived. However, the gravest consequence of this recklessness was the heart-wrenching loss of a five-year-old boy named Srirama Meherwade, who succumbed to severe injuries on the spot. Adding to the gravity of the situation, it is asserted that the accused failed to render immediate medical aid to the injured parties. Furthermore, he neglected to promptly report the accident to the nearest police station, exacerbating the gravity of the situation. Accordingly, he has been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134(a) and

¶25

(b) read with 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶26

After filing of charge sheet, the trial Court has taken

¶27

cognizance for the alleged commission of offence and on

¶28

¶29

appearance of the accused, plea was recorded and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶30

To prove the case of prosecution, eleven witnesses were examined and fifteen documents got marked as Exs.P1 to P.15. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure as to the incriminating evidence found against him, he has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.

¶31

Upon hearing arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appeal preferred by the accused before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2015 against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence also came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial

¶32

¶33

Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court, the accused has preferred this Revision Petition.

¶34

Sri T. R. Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

¶35

the Revision Petitioner-accused submits that PWs.1, 5, 7 and 8 has admitted in their cross-examination that the vehicle was moving slowly, but, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and sought for allowing the Revision Petition. Learned Counsel for submits that prosecution has examined eleven witnesses as PWs.1 to 11. Out of them, PWs.1 to 4 and 7 are shown as eyewitnesses, out of them, except PW-5, other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Though PW.5 has deposed as to the accident, but has not deposed as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. During the course of cross-examination, he has clearly admitted that on the date of accident, he was sitting on the backside and he did not know on whose fault the accident had occurred. However, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence,

¶36

¶37

which is not sustainable under law and on all these grounds, submitted to allow the Revision Petition.

¶38

Per contra , Sri Praveen Uppar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State, justified the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶39

Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following points would arise for my consideration in this Revision Petition:

¶40

Whether the Revision Petition has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is confirmed by the appellate Court?

¶41

What order?

¶42

My answer for the above points is as under:

¶43

Point No.1: in the affirmative; Point No.2: as per final order.

¶44

I have meticulously examined the evidence presented

¶45

before this Court. The prosecution's case revolves around an

¶46

¶47

incident that occurred on July 15^th , 2012, at 11:00 am. According to the prosecution, the accused, who was driving a TATA Ace Magic vehicle with Registration No.KA-17/A-9300, was involved in a collision with a parked lorry bearing Registration No.KA-27-9207 on the left side of the road. Notably, CW.1Rajashree, who is also the complainant, serves as the key eyewitness and is corroborated by CW.6, CW.7, CW.8, CW.9, CW.11, and CW.12, who are also identified as eyewitnesses. Among them, CW.6 and CW.9 have been examined as PWs3 and 5, respectively, while the others have not been called to testify. There is no dispute regarding the incident itself or the tragic death of a five-year-old boy named Srirama Meherwade. Furthermore, the injuries sustained by CWs.6 to 8 are not contested. The central question at hand pertains to whether the accident occurred due to the accused's rash and negligent driving. In this regard, I have scrutinized the testimony of key witnesses, including PW.2-Rajashree, PW.3-Late, PW.5-Ambasa, PW.7-Mahesha, and PW.8-Chamal Sab. PW-2 described the events leading up to the accident, stating that they were traveling from Haveri to Harihara in the TATA Ace Magic vehicle.

¶48

¶49

She mentioned that she was seated in the back while the others, including the deceased child, were sleeping. Suddenly, they heard a loud, jarring noise as their vehicle collided with the lorry. She estimated the vehicle's speed to be around 40 kmph. Furthermore, she recounted the injuries sustained by the occupants and the tragic death of her son during the accident. It's noteworthy that PW-2 was treated as a partially hostile witness and subjected to cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, with the court's permission. During crossexamination, the prosecution did not extract any favorable responses from her to support their contention regarding the accused's rash and negligent driving.

¶50

The evidence provided by the witnesses, including the partially hostile PW-2, must be meticulously considered to determine the culpability of the accused.

¶51

PW-3, who is the close relative of PW-2, has not supported the case of the prosecution. Even this witness is also treated as hostile witness and was cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court by the prosecution. In her cross-examination, she has categorically

¶52

¶53

denied the statement recorded by Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is marked as Ex.P-6. PW-5-Ambasa Subhash Meherwadi, husband of CW1 and also the father of the deceased-Srirama Meherwadi, has deposed in his evidence that about two years back, he, his wife and his son were proceeding in TATA Ace vehicle from Haveri to Harihara in TATA Ace Magic vehicle and he was sitting at the backside and the accident took place near Ranebennur at about 10.00 pm and the same occurred due to negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. In this accident, his son Srirama Meherwadi, died on the spot. But, during the cross-examination, he has clearly admitted that he has no exact information as to on whose fault the accident had occurred. Only, after hearing the horrifying/thumping sound, he has noticed the accident.

¶54

PW.7-Mahesh, the driver of the lorry has deposed in

¶55

his evidence that at about 2-3 years back, he being the driver of lorry, was proceeding from Mangalore to Harihara and when he came near Kakola, he has parked the vehicle towards the left side on the road for want of fuel. One Jamal Sab was the cleaner of lorry and at about 11.00 pm, one passenger vehicle

¶56

¶57

came from backside and dashed to his lorry. Due to this accident, 4-5 passengers have sustained injuries. The driver of the TATA Ace magic vehicle ran away. He has not seen that driver. The witnesses also treated as partly hostile witnesses; and this witness also is treated as partly hostile and was crossexamined by the Additional Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court. In his cross-examination, he has categorically denied the statement recorded by Investigation Officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure which is marked as Ex.P.7. PW-8-cleaner of lorry, has deposed as to the parking of the lorry at the relevant point of time and he also deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle came in a high speed, and dashed to the hind side of the lorry and caused the accident. But this witness had not deposed as to the negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. A careful examination of the above material witnesses make it crystal-clear that the above material witnesses have not deposed as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶58

Apart from this, it is the case of the prosecution that the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-27-9207 parked on the

¶59

¶60

highway and the accident took place during night time at about 10.30-11.00 pm. It is evident from the mahazar-Ex.P-1 that the place of accident is Poona-Bangalore Road near railway bridge. The width of the road is 36 feet. Ex.P.2-rough sketch reveals that the driver of the lorry parked the same on the tar road, which is at the distance of 36 feet and the truck covered eleven feet of the road. This rough sketch or the spot mahazar do not reveal as to whether the driver of the lorry who has parked his vehicle on the road has followed the provisions of Rule 16 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 5 and 22 of Motor Vehicle (Driving) Regulations, 2017, Section 8 and 10 of the Karnataka Traffic Control Act, 1960 and Rule 19 of Karnataka Traffic Control Rules, 1979. The Investigating Officer has not whispered anything as to whether the driver of the lorry who has parked the vehicle on the Road has followed the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. Driver of the lorry has also violated the provisions of Section 122 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Had the driver of the lorry followed aforesaid Rules and Regulations, this accident would not have occurred. The trial Court and the appellate courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on

¶61

¶62

record in accordance with law and facts. The trial Court and the Appellate Court have also not appreciated as to the compliance of aforesaid provisions of Act and Rules regarding the precautionary measures to be taken while parking the vehicle on road.

¶63

On re-appreciation of evidence on record along with aforesaid provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has filed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the impugned judgment needs interference by this Court. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the affirmative.

¶64

For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:

¶65

O R D E R

¶66

Criminal Revision Petition is allowed;

¶67

Judgment of conviction and order of Sentence dated 24^th August, 2015 passed in C.C.No.197 of 2012 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Ranebennur which is confirmed by Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 12^th June, 2017 passed in Criminal Appeal

¶68

¶69

No.79 of 2015 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur are set aside;

¶70

Accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code;

¶71

Amount if any deposited by the accused shall be refunded to him in accordance with law;

¶72

Registry to send the copy of this Order along with the trial Court records to the concerned Courts.

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

lnn

Raju S/O Padmavva Junjannanavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju S/O Padmavva Junjannanavar 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

Bilal S/O Adam Shaikh Vs the State of Karnataka

The Divisional Manager Reliance Vs Nagraj and Anr.

Sri. Manu M @ Taki @ Mau Vs State through

Nandappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Devanna S/O Dyavaiah @ Thammaiah Vs Dyavaiah S/O Rajaiah Since Dead by Lrs

Rasheed Mohammadjafer Kanakyavale Vs State of Karnataka