Partly allowed

Uday S/O. Timma Mukri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2023CRL.RP/100321/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under S. 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court confirmed convictions under Sections 279, 337, and 338 IPC relating to a traffic accident. The Court reduced the fine for S. 338 within statutory limits, substituted imprisonment with compensation, and set aside an excessive imprisonment term while upholding conviction.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; fine for S. 338 reduced to Rs. 1,000; petitioner directed to pay Rs. 5,000 compensation with 2 months imprisonment in default.

Uday S/O. Timma Mukri Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11823 CRL.RP No. 100321 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100321 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

UDAY S/O TIMMA MUKRI, AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. HANDIGON, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581362.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY P.S.I. MANKI POLICE STATION, REP. THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580011.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶15

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2023.10.10 16:23:24 +0530

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING THIS COURT TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN C.C NO.216/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRL. JMFC, AT HONNAVAR AND RECORDS IN CRL.APPEAL NO.124/2011 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.06.2022 PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR IN CRL.A. NO.124/2011 AND JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 04.10.2011 PASSED BY PRL. JMFC, HONNAVAR IN C.C NO.216/2011, CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FROM

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11823 CRL.RP No. 100321 of 2022

¶18

OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S. 279, 337 AND 338 OF IPC AND 184 OF M.V. ACT.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Being aggrieved by the concurrent judgment

¶22

and order of the Trial Court, which came to be confirmed by the Sessions Court in appeal, the accused has come up with this petition under Section 397 r/w/s 401 Cr.P.C.

¶23

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank before the Trial Court.

¶24

In support of the petition, accused has contended that the impugned judgments and orders are contrary to law, facts and probabilities of the case. Both Courts have failed to take note of glaring contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The vehicle of accused i.e., goods rickshaw was fully loaded and there was no rash or negligence on the part of the accused. The Sessions Court has simply reiterated the order of the Trial Court without re-

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11823 CRL.RP No. 100321 of 2022

¶26

appreciating the evidence placed on record. If ultimately this Court comes to the conclusion that the charges levelled against accused are proved beyond reasonable doubt, looking to the age of accused, lenient view may be taken and set aside the order of imprisonment.

¶27

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Trial Court and Sessions Court has come to the correct conclusion and there is no scope for interference by this Court and prays to reject the petition.

¶28

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶29

The respondent police have filed charge sheet

¶30

against the accused alleging that on 30.12.2010 at 9.30 a.m., accused being the driver of luggage auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-47/2357 (‘offending vehicle’, for short), loaded with iron pipes and rods, drove the

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11823 CRL.RP No. 100321 of 2022

¶32

same in a rash or negligent manner from Bhatkal side towards Honnavar and suddenly took right turn and dashed against the motorcycle ridden by complainant, who was proceeding by the side of the offending vehicle. As a result of which, accident occurred and complainant who was riding the motorcycle as well as pillion rider i.e., CW4Mahesh sustained injuries and thereby accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act.

¶33

After due service of summons, accused

¶34

appeared and contested the case. He has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶35

In support of prosecution case, 4 witnesses are examined including the complainant and pillion rider who are eyewitnesses and Exs.P1 to P12 are marked.

¶36

During the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused has denied the incriminating evidence and claimed that from the left side of the

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11823 CRL.RP No. 100321 of 2022

¶38

motorbike rider suddenly a cattle came and as such, the bike rider dashed his vehicle against the right portion of the offending vehicle resulting in the rider as well as the pillion rider sustaining injuries. However, he has not led any defence evidence.

¶39

Vide the impugned judgment and order, the Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offences p/u/s 279 IPC. Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months for the offence p/u/s 337 IPC. It has sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and pay fine of Rs.3000/in default of paying the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence p/u/s 338 IPC.

¶40

The appeal filed by the accused came to be dismissed by the Sessions Court.

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11823 CRL.RP No. 100321 of 2022

¶42

PW1-Ramachandra is the complainant and rider and PW3-Mahesh is the pillion rider of the motorcycle. PW2-Jaywant is the witness to the spot mahazar and sketch of the scene of occurrence. PW4-Vishnu is an eyewitness to the incident. Despite lengthy crossexamination of these witnesses, nothing material is elicited to disbelieve their evidence. Through their crossexamination the accused has failed to prove his defence.

¶43

PW5-Shankar, ASI has registered the case and conducted investigation. PW6-Krishnananda, PSI has conducted further infestation and filed charge sheet. Their evidence prove the investigation. Even though they have been cross-examined at length, the accused has failed to point out any discrepancy in the investigation conducted by them.

¶44

Taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that charges levelled against the accused are proved beyond reasonable doubt and this

¶45

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11823 CRL.RP No. 100321 of 2022

¶46

Court finds no justifiable grounds to interfere with the said

¶47

conclusions arrived at by them.

¶48

So far as the offences p/u/s 279 and 337 IPC are concerned, the punishment imposed is reasonable and adequate. Having regard to the fact that at the time of the accident the accused was aged 30 years and he is a driver by profession and after the accident he has remained at the spot i.e., he has not chosen to run away from the spot. Taking into consideration these aspects, this Court is of the opinion that sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for 1 year, is on the higher side. The punishment prescribed for the offence u/s 338 IPC is with imprisonment of either description which may extend 2 years or with fine which may extend to Rs.1000/- or with both. The Trial Court has also imposed fine in a sum of Rs.3000/- which exceeds the maximum fine that could be imposed for the said offence. Therefore, the fine is required to be confined to Rs.1000/-. Instead of the sentence of imprisonment, it would be appropriate to

¶49

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11823 CRL.RP No. 100321 of 2022

¶50

direct the accused to pay compensation in a sum of Rs.5000/- and in default of paying the compensation to undergo imprisonment for 2 months. To this extent, the petition succeeds and accordingly the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

Petition filed u/sec.397 r/w/s 401 Cr.P.C. is

¶53

allowed in part.

¶54

The conviction and sentence for the offences punishable u/secs.337 and 338 IPC is confirmed.

¶55

However so far as the offence u/sec.338 IPC is concerned, the petitioner/accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to pay fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month.

¶56

In addition, the petitioner/accused is directed to pay compensation in a sum of Rs.5,000/- to PW3. In default of paying the compensation, he shall undergo imprisonment for 2 months. He

¶57

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11823 CRL.RP No. 100321 of 2022

¶58

shall deposit the compensation within a period of

¶59

2 weeks before the trial Court from the date of

¶60

receipt of a copy of this order and the trial Court shall issue notice to PW3 and disburse the same

¶61

in his favour.

¶62

Registry is directed to send a copy of this

¶63

order to the trial Court forthwith.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

KGK/CLK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Uday S/O. Timma Mukri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday S/O. Timma Mukri 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

Prasad S/O Suresh Badiger Vs the State of Karnataka

Jagadish Bhavarlal Daya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Bhushan S Kadam S/O Shivanand Kadam Vs the State of Karnataka

Vidya Anandu Shetty Vs Suprabhata Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamita

Smt. Devi Prasannan D/O Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Farhana Alias Parveen W/O Khaja Hussain Vs the State of Karnataka