Dismissed

Siddik Huseen v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2023CRL.RP/211/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging convictions for rash and negligent driving causing death. Upholding lower courts' findings, the bench held that adverse inference could be drawn against the driver for failing to explain the accident scene, and the petition was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; accused directed to be present for serving of sentence.

Siddik Huseen Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.211 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SIDDIK HUSEEN S/O ABDUL SAMAD, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT JANATHA COLONY, GARIGESHWARI VILLAGE, T. NARASHIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-57110

¶9

….PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.S.T. BIKKANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SIRA POLICE-572 137, (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR).

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. GNANESH .H. KEMPANNA, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN C.C.NO.1305/2012 DATED 25.04.2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SIRA AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONFIRMATION PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.67/2013 DATED:9.12.2015 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., AT TUMKUR AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED/APPELLANT IN C.C.NO.1305/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SIRA.

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 14.08.2023, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This revision is filed by the accused under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.p.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira in C.C.No.1305/2012 dated 25.04.2013 and confirmed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Crl.A.No.67/2013 vide judgment dated 09.12.2015.

¶20

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.

¶21

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as under:

¶22

Complainant who is the driver of the VRL bus bearing registration No.KA 25 B 6341 has lodged a complaint on 30.04.2012 regarding the accident and on the basis of complaint, Investigating Officer investigated the crime and submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the

¶23

¶24

offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 378 and 304A of IPC.

¶25

According to the prosecution on 29.04.2012, the

¶26

complainant along with his bus left Ramadurga at 7.00 p.m. and near Sira at 4.30 a.m. because of traffic jam, the vehicles were stopped. He has also stopped his vehicle and in front of his vehicle the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA 01-F-8470 was also stopped due to traffic jam. It is alleged that at the time the accused being the driver of National Travels bus bearing registration No.KA 01-C-693 came from behind by driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the rear portion of the VRL bus. As a result, the VRL bus dashed to rear portion of the KSRTC which was standing in front of the VRL bus. All the three buses had sustained damages and passengers in National Travels fell down and sustained injuries. It is also alleged that one of the injured Manjunath succumbed because of the injuries. It is the specific assertion of the prosecution that the accident in question is because of the actionable negligence on the part of the accused who ignoring the traffic jam drove the bus in a high speed and dashed to the stationed bus in the traffic jam. Hence, the

¶27

¶28

charge sheet came to be submitted. On the basis of the charge sheet, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued process against the accused. The accused has appeared through his counsel and was enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers were also furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Accused denied the plea framed against him and claims to be tried.

¶29

To prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution

¶30

has examined in all eleven witnesses as PW1 to PW11 and fourteen documents were marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. After the conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable him to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him. But the case of the accused is of total denial and he did not lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence.

¶31

After hearing the arguments and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 by imposing imprisonment for six

¶32

¶33

months and for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC he is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has approached learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in Crl.A.No.67/2013.

¶34

The learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the accused is before this Court by way of this revision.

¶35

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned HCGP for the State. Perused the records.

¶36

The learned counsel for revision petitioner contended that admittedly it is a chain of accident involving three buses and when the Investigating Officer has visited the spot after 4 to 5 hours, the vehicles were removed from the spot and there is no incriminating evidence forthcoming. It is

¶37

¶38

alleged that PW7 and PW1 are the material witnesses and their evidence is inconsistent and contrary. He would also contend that speed is not criteria for deciding rash and negligent driving and the prosecution has taken inconsistent and contrary defense. Hence, he would contend that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and have erroneously convicted the accused.

¶39

Alternatively, he would contend that considering the manner in which accident has occurred the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, (for short ‘PO Act’) may be extended to the accused which was not considered by both the Courts below.

¶40

Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that all

¶41

the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and admittedly, the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle and he was following other buses and when there was a traffic jam, he was required to be cautious and he is able to see the front vehicles but he smashed the VRL bus on back side which

¶42

¶43

itself disclose his reckless act. He would also contend that the accused was not following the KSRTC bus, but he was following VRL bus and he was required to maintain a safe distance but that was also not done. Hence, he would contend that no illegality or perversity is found in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the Courts below. He would also assert that in such matters, the benefit of the PO Act cannot be extended as it is a reckless driving and if the accused allowed continue this act, he is putting the lives of public in danger. Hence, he would seek for dismissal of the revision.

¶44

Having heard the arguments and having perused the records, now the following point would arise for my consideration:

¶45

“Whether the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both courts below are perverse, erroneous, arbitrary and illegal so as to call for any interference by this court in this revision?”

¶46

It is the assertion of the prosecution that on 30.04.2012, at morning 4.30 a.m. near Sira there was some traffic jam. As a result, KSRTC bus stopped and VRL was

¶47

¶48

following it and the offending bus driven by the accused smashed the VRL bus from back side and in turn, the VRL bus smashed the KSRTC bus which has resulted in the accident causing injury to inmates of the bus as well as death of a passenger. The death as well as injuries are undisputed. Further, the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle is also not under challenge.

¶49

PW1 is the complainant and he has deposed as per the complaint assertions. Though regarding rash and negligent act, he has turned hostile, but he has deposed in accordance to the complaint regarding the factual aspect and his evidence if considered in total it is evident that the accident is because of the actionable negligence on the part of the accused who was the driver of the offending vehicle. Much arguments have been advanced that the accused had also visited police station to lodge the complaint and it is admitted by PW1. On the basis of his admission it is contended that the police have not received the complaint lodged by the accused, But interestingly, it is stated by PW1 in his cross-examination and accused himself in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement nowhere asserted that he has attempted to lodge any complaint. Apart

¶50

¶51

from that, if at all police had refused his complaint, he could have lodged a private complaint, but that was also not forthcoming. Hence, the said arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner holds no water.

¶52

PW2 is a spare driver and he has also supported prosecution. But his evidence discloses that he did not see the accused but his evidence also establish that accident is because of reckless driving of the offending bus.

¶53

PW6 is the IMV inspector and he has deposed regarding examination of the vehicles and damage being caused and his statement clearly disclose that the accident is not because of any mechanical defect.

¶54

PW7 is another material witness i.e, the driver of

¶55

the KSRTC bus and he has also deposed that on 29.04.2012, he along with PW8 proceeding from Belgaum to Bengaluru by driving KSRTC bus bearing KA 01F 8470 and near Bhuvanahalli, there was a traffic jam since a vehicle was breakdown and he stopped the vehicle and behind him a VRL bus stopped and suddenly the accused smashed the VRL bus from back side. As a result, VRL dashed his vehicle. Though

¶56

¶57

this witness was cross-examined at length nothing was elicited so as to impeach his evidence. Certain minor contradictions were highlighted by the defense counsel in order to elicit the benefit but no contradictions were got marked so as to put to Investigating Officer.

¶58

From the assessment of the entire evidence it is evident that at the time of accident there was certain traffic jam on national high way. As a result, the vehicles were either stopped or moving slowly. In view of that matter, accused being driver of the offending vehicle, he should be more cautious but he smashed the VRL bus suddenly from back side. It is not his case that VRL bus abruptly stopped in the middle of the road. No such defense is set up by him. Further, the accused has not given any explanation in his 313 Cr.P.C statement for the cause of the accident. In the given circumstances, the accused is the best witness to explain how the accident has occurred. But he did not explain anything. It is argued that accused has got right to be silent and he cannot be compelled to say anything. Though accused has got a right of silence, but under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the

¶59

¶60

facts within the knowledge of a particular person are required to be explained by him.

¶61

In the instant case, the evidence of all other witnesses become irrelevant and the statement of accused alone become more relevant, as he was the driver of the bus and he is in a best position to explain how the accident has occurred and what precautions were taken by him. But he did not made any attempts and his case was a formal denial. In view of these aspects and in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, adverse inference requires to be drawn against accused for not disclosing the fact within his knowledge. There is no dispute regarding death and injuries being caused to the inmates of the bus.

¶62

Looking to the oral and documentary evidence and

¶63

admitted facts, the principles of res ipsa loquitur are directly applicable to the case in hand. It is for the accused to explain the facts as to how the accident has occurred but he did not do so. Both the courts below have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in detail and have rightly convicted the accused. No illegality or infirmity is found in the judgment of

¶64

¶65

conviction and order of sentence so as to call for any interference.

¶66

Looking to these facts and circumstances, the point under consideration is answered in the negative and as such, the revision petition being devoid of any merits does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

Revision petition stands dismissed .

¶69

Send back the TCRs to the concerned Courts below with a certified copy of this order and the trial Court is directed to secure the presence of the accused/revision petitioner for serving sentence.

¶70

Sd/- JUDGE

¶71

Siddik Huseen v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddik Huseen 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

Rajanna Vs Lokesh B

Sri T R Naveen Kumar Vs Sri S M Shivashankar

Sri. B. Vijaya Kumar Hegde Vs M/S. Kanva Power Projects

Mr Rama Prasad @ Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. v. Prabhakar Reddy Vs Sri. B.M. Rangaswamy

Sathish Shetty K Vs Self Growth Nidhi Ltd.