Dismissed

Shekarappa Mahanthappa Hunagund v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2023CRL.RP/1082/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal revision petition filed by a bus driver convicted of rash and negligent driving causing injury. The Court affirmed the lower courts' judgment, rejecting the plea that the accident was caused by swerving for an oncoming vehicle, holding the evidence conclusively proved negligence.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed; fine deposit directed.

Shekarappa Mahanthappa Hunagund Vs State of Karnataka — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Crl.R.P. No.1082/2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1082/2015

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHEKHARAPPA MAHANTHAPPA HUNAGUND, S/O. LATE MAHANTHAPPA, 45 YEARS, KSRTC BUS DRIVER, BEARING NO.KA-18/F-0109, R/O. MAROLA, HUNAGUND TALUK, BEGALKOT DISTRICT-587118.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S. P. RAMESHA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY LINGADAHALLI RURAL POLICE, REPTD BY: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUIDLING, BENGALURU-1.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C, 1973, PRAYING THIS COURT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 25.08.2015 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.70/2014 AND JUDGMENT ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 13.05.2014 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, TARIKERE IN C.C. NO. 263/2012.

¶17

¶18

Crl.R.P. No.1082/2015

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON 28.07.2023 AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Civil Judge and Additional JMFC Tarikere in C.C. No.263/2012 dated 13.05.2014 and confirmed in Crl.A. No.70/2014 dated 25.08.2015 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity) accused/petitioner has preferred this Revision under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’, for brevity).

¶22

Parties to this revision are referred as per their rank before the Trial Court.

¶23

The facts leading up to this revision petition are as under:

¶24

That one K.C. Basavaraju S/o. Chikkegowda filed a complaint before the Police Sub Inspector, Lingadahalli Rural Police Station on 28.04.2012 at 1.00 p.m. alleging that on 28.04.2012 at 11.30 a.m. he was

¶25

¶26

Crl.R.P. No.1082/2015

¶27

traveling in a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-18/F0109 in which the accused was the driver of the bus. The accused was driving the bus at third curve of Shanthaveri Ghat from Lingadahalli to Chikkamagaluru in a high speed and in a negligent manner. Because of this rash and negligent driving of the bus in high speed near third curve area of Shanthaveri Ghat, he lost control over the bus and because of the same bus toppled down and damaged. As he was the inmate of the bus, he sustained bleeding injury to his both the legs, so also to other parts of the body. The accused being the driver and also its conductor and other two ladies who were traveling in the said bus also sustained injuries. All the injured persons were shifted to Tarikere Government Hospital in an ambulance. He gave a complaint as per Ex.P.1 when he was taking treatment in the hospital.

¶28

Based upon this Ex.P.1 the crime was registered in Crime No.26/2012 of Lingadahalli police station for the offences under Section 279, 337 of IPC.

¶29

The Investigating Officer after following all the formalities of investigation and on completion of the same,

¶30

¶31

Crl.R.P. No.1082/2015

¶32

filed a charge sheet against the accused before the Trial Court alleging the offences under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and Section 146 R/W Section 196 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.M.V. Act’, for brevity).

¶33

Before the Trial Court to prove the guilt of the accused prosecution in all examined 9 witnesses from PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.12 with respective signatures thereon.

¶34

The learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments and on perusal of the material placed on record found the accused guilty for the offences under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 146 R/W Section 196 of I.M.V. Act.

¶35

This judgment of conviction and sentence was challenged by the accused before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Criminal Appeal No.70/2015. The learned Sessions Judge on perusal of the records passed the judgment dated 25.08.2015 by confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. This is how the revision petitioner being accused is

¶36

¶37

Crl.R.P. No.1082/2015

¶38

before this Court challenging both the judgments in this revision.

¶39

The learned counsel for the revision

¶40

petitioner/accused forcefully submits that the judgments passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court are not sustainable either in law or on facts. The Courts below have totally failed to consider the admissions given by the prosecution witnesses. The said offences were committed when the petitioner tried to avoid a vehicle which was coming from opposite side. This fact was admitted by the witnesses. The evidence placed on record by the prosecution was not sufficient to convict the accused. PWs.1 and 3 have not at all witnessed the coming of the vehicle from the opposite side and they were not able to see the same. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned judgments do not sustain and are liable to be set aside.

¶41

As against this submission, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State supported the reasons being assigned by both the Courts and according to him, the Trial court as well as the first

¶42

¶43

Crl.R.P. No.1082/2015

¶44

appellate court have properly appreciated the evidence in

¶45

proper perspective and clearly held the accused guilty of the offences alleged against him. There is no lacuna in the evidence as against the prosecution and hence he submits that, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶46

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of both the sides. Perused the record.

¶47

The points that would arise for my

¶48

consideration are:

¶49

i) Whether learned Trial court as well as first appellate court have committed any factual or legal error in finding the accused guilty and hence the said judgment of conviction and sentence require interference by this Court?

¶50

ii) What Order?

¶51

Point No.1: Before adverting to the other aspects of the case let me analyse the admitted facts.

¶52

i) On the date of accident i.e., on 28.04.2012

¶53

accused was the driver of a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-18/F-0109. He was driving the said bus from Lingadahalli towards

¶54

¶55

Crl.R.P. No.1082/2015

¶56

Chikkamagaluru near third curve of Santhaveri

¶57

Ghat.

¶58

ii) At about 11.30 a.m. the said bus toppled

¶59

down and inmates of the bus like PW.1 and other

¶60

inmates sustained injuries. Viz, wound certificates of PW.1-K.C.Basavaraj, PW.6Shashikala, PW.3-L.V. Dakshayani and PW.7-N. Ravikumar being the inmates sustained injuries as reflected in their wound certificates marked at

¶61

Ex.P.3 to P.6.

¶62

iii) The said accident has taken place not because of any mechanical defects in the said bus as per the MV Report in Ex.P.9.

¶63

iv) The said accident has taken place near

¶64

third curve of Santhaveri Ghat in between Chikkamagaluru and Tarikere road as shown in Ex.P.10 the sketch.

¶65

The defence has not denied all the aforesaid factual features so stated. These admitted facts need not be proved.

¶66

¶67

Crl.R.P. No.1082/2015

¶68

It is the case of accident. It is the allegation of

¶69

the prosecution that, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver i.e., accused/petitioner. Then the burden lies on the prosecution to prove that it was accused and accused alone who was responsible in causing the accident. Once this burden is discharged, the onus is on the accused to place material on record to disbelieve the case of the prosecution.

¶70

Here in this case, the defence of the prosecution is that, when he was driving the bus at 11.30 a.m. on that day near third curve area so narrated in the sketch being the scene of offence, he noticed a vehicle coming from opposite direction. In order to give a way to the said opposite vehicle, he swerved his bus towards left side of the road and because of the same his bus toppled down.

¶71

PWs.1, 3 and 6 being the inmates/passengers

¶72

in the said bus respectively, in their evidence consistently

¶73

have stated that when accused was driving the said bus at about 11.30 a.m., near Santhaveri Ghat third curve, he

¶74

¶75

Crl.R.P. No.1082/2015

¶76

was driving the said bus in high speed and made the said

¶77

bus to topple down. Because of the said accident the inmates of the bus sustained injuries. Though lengthy cross examination is directed to all these witnesses but nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of these witnesses so as to disbelieve their evidence given in the examination chief. No doubt these three witnesses have deposed ignorance about coming of vehicle from the opposite direction, to give a way to the said bus, accused took his bus on the left side of the road.

¶78

When it is a concret defence of the accused

¶79

that, he swerved the bus towards the left side of the road

¶80

so as to enable the opposite vehicle to pass on the road, but this defence set up by the accused appears to be a false defence. The Investigating Officer in this case has not brought on record the width of the road. The panchanama at Ex.P.2 is silent about the width of the road. Even during the course of 313 of Cr.P.C. statement, nothing is stated by the accused to prove that, to give a

¶81

way to the opposite vehicle, he swerved his bus towards left side of the road.

¶82

10 -

¶83

Crl.R.P. No.1082/2015

¶84

In case of accident, driver is the best person to

¶85

say that how the said accident has taken place. What made him to drive the vehicle towards the left side of the road is to be explained by the driver only. Evidently accused was a driver in a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. On the date of the accident, he was driving the vehicle i.e., bus, on the road which was having severe curves as noticed in Ex.P.10 sketch. He was carrying passengers in the said bus. It has come in the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 6 that, though they requested to drive the bus slowly but he did not care for their request and was driving the bus in a high speed. PWs.1, 3 and 6 have given graphic account of accident. When the driver of the bus was driving his vehicle in a curve area, he must have been more careful. So by reading the evidence of these witnesses, if Section 279 is applied, it deals with rash driving on a public way. Obviously the foundation in accident cases under Section 279 of IPC is negligence. It is established that, there was an element of rashness and negligence on the part of accused. There is no specific evidence adduced by the accused prove his defence.

¶86

11 -

¶87

Crl.R.P. No.1082/2015

¶88

Accident took place on 28.04.2012 at 11.30 a.m. and immediately FIR was registered. The aforesaid inmates have sustained accidental injuries.

¶89

So far as rash and negligent driving is concerned, and speed is not a deciding factor. It may not be always possible to determine with reference to the speed of the vehicle whether a person was driving rashly and negligently. Even, one is driving a vehicle at a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount to “rash and negligent driving” within the meaning of the language of Section 279 of IPC.

¶90

From the evidence of these PWs.1, 3 and 6, the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by the accused is well established by the prosecution. Because of reckless and rash driving of the bus, it went towards the left of the road and toppled. What made him to swerve bus towards the left side of the road though he knew about the width of the road, is not explained by the accused either during the course of his 313 of Cr.P.C. statement or has not filed his written statement. What was

¶91

12 -

¶92

Crl.R.P. No.1082/2015

¶93

the reason for toppling down of the bus is not explaind by

¶94

the accused.

¶95

The learned Trial Court has properly assessed the evidence of the witnesses. Whatever the evidence spoken to by the witnesses with regard to driving of the bus by the accused remained unchallenged and this evidence supports the case of the prosecution. In such cases, if undue sympathy is shown, it results in miscarriage of justice.

¶96

Learned Trial Court and the first appellate Court have rightly assessed the evidence of adduced by the prosecution and have rightly found the accused guilty. I do not find any factual or legal error committed by both the Courts in finding the accused guilty. Therefore, this revision petition merits no consideration. Hence, the point raised supra is answered in the negative. Consequentially, the revision petition filed by the petitioner fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶97

13 -

¶98

Crl.R.P. No.1082/2015

¶99

Resultantly, the following;

¶100

ORDER

¶101

(i) Revision petition filed by the

¶102

petitioner under Section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶103

(ii) Judgment of conviction and sentence

¶104

passed in C.C.No.263/2012 dated 13.05.2014 by

¶105

the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere and confirmed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Crl.A. No.70/2014 dated 25.08.2015 are affirmed.

¶106

(iii) Accused is directed to deposit the

¶107

fine amount before the Trial Court forthwith if not deposited earlier.

¶108

(iv) Sent back the Trial Court and first appellate Court records forthwith along with the copy of this order.

¶109

Sd/JUDGE

¶110

SMM

Shekarappa Mahanthappa Hunagund v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shekarappa Mahanthappa Hunagund 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

M/S Nazama Traders Vs M/S Arihant Marketing

Mrs Chethana Shetty Vs Rohan Monteiro

M/S Varavinayak Ventures Vs Rajesh Sharma

Ravi Vs State of Karnataka

Jagadeesh C K Vs Pratheesh K H

M/S Maxworth Realty India Vs Sri v Srinivas