High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction and sentence for rash and negligent driving causing death. The court found prosecution evidence clear and the sentence just and proper.
The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.RP No. 226 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 226 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
DHANANJAYA.G S/O GOVINDASWAMY NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT RAGIMANUPUTTADE POST, RAMAPURA POST, CHITTOR DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N. UDAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY R.T. NAGAR P.S., BANGALORE-560032.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.1305/12, DATED 29.01.2013 PASSED BY THE MMTC-VI, BANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 338, 304(A) OF IPC AND SECTION 134(a)(b) READ WITH SECTION 187 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.RP No. 226 of 2014
ORDER
This revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 29.01.2013 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic - VI, Bengaluru City (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in C.C.No.1305/2012 convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth referred to as 'M.V. Act' for short) and the consequent sentence to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and a sum of Rs.1,000/for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.250/- for the offence punishable under Section 134(a) read with Section 187 of M.V. Act and to pay fine of Rs.250/ for the offence punishable under Section 134(b) read with Section 187 of M.V. Act. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated 05.03.2014 passed by the Fast Track Court - II, Bengaluru City (henceforth referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A.No.78/2013,
CRL.RP No. 226 of 2014
by which the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court was upheld.
CRL.RP No. 226 of 2014
read with Section 187 of the M.V. Act and issued summons to the accused, who appeared before the Court and was released on bail. Copies of the charge-sheet were furnished to the accused and the substance of the charge was read over to him, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.14 and marked Exs.P1 to P13. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating evidence against him. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence.
CRL.RP No. 226 of 2014
the counsel for the accused as well as the Public Prosecutor for the State and framed points for consideration. The Appellate Court reconsidered the evidence on record and held that there was sufficient evidence available on record to justify the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. It also held that the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court was just and proper having regard to the nature of rash and negligent driving by the accused. Accordingly, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.
CRL.RP No. 226 of 2014
accident. Further, he contended that none of the prosecution witnesses had identified the accused and therefore, the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the petitioner. He invited the attention of the Court to the sketch prepared by PW.13 and submitted that the sketch did not indicate that there was any junction of two roads, while the complainant had claimed that the accident occurred at the junction of the road. He further contended that the spot of the accident was the busy Bengaluru International Airport road, which was always choc a bloc and therefore, it was impossible for any driver of a
heavy goods vehicle to drive it rash and negligently. The learned counsel therefore, submitted that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court did not consider these relevant facts, which created a doubt regarding the commission of the offence by the accused.
CRL.RP No. 226 of 2014
the spot mahazar. He submitted that the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector namely, PW6 indicated that it was the accused who was rash and negligent in driving the lorry and causing the accident. He therefore, submitted that the accused had driven the lorry unmindful of the harm that could be caused to the other users of the road and therefore, the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court was just and proper and do not call for any interference in this revision petition.
CRL.RP No. 226 of 2014
evidence lead by the prosecution did not suffice for a conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of the M.V. Act, this Court cursorily considered the evidence to ascertain whether the evidence on record was sufficient to justify the judgment of conviction.
CRL.RP No. 226 of 2014
the lorry brushed on the left side and dashed against a Tata Sumo over the flyover. He deposed that the driver of the lorry stopped it and ran away. He noticed that the persons riding on the Kinetic Nova Scooter were injured in the accident caused by the driver of the lorry. In the cross-examination of this witness, no contra evidence was extracted to disbelieve his evidence.
CRL.RP No. 226 of 2014
supported the prosecution. PW.8 was a hearsay witness. PW.10 was the Doctor, who examined the deceased at Baptist hospital. PW.9 was the Doctor who conducted the postmortem and who was of the opinion that the death was due to the injuries to the head. PW.14 was the owner of the lorry, who deposed that the accused was the person, who was driving the lorry and that he had informed the same to the police in response to a notice at Ex.P12.
CRL.RP No. 226 of 2014
which belied the accident or the rash and negligent driving by the accused. This Court has taken judicial notice of the fact that the accident occurred on the busy Bengaluru International Airport road, where there is a heavy movement of vehicles. The accused who was driving a garbage laden lorry had indeed, driven it recklessly as he not only knocked down the scooterist but also brushed against another car and thereafter, dashed against another Jeep moving in front. There were no mechanical defects in the lorry or the other three vehicles, that could have caused the accident. The accident was not due to an error of judgment, as the accused could easily see the vehicles moving in front and hence, must have exercised due care and caution. The accused did not disclose in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., how the accident happened and to establish his innocence. Therefore, the accident can be attributed to the negligence on the part of the accused. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have considered the evidence on record in the right perspective and have rightly held that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond any doubt. This Court did not find any procedural irregularity in the trial of the case or in the Appellate Court
CRL.RP No. 226 of 2014
disposing of the appeal, warranting interference by this Court. Having regard to the fact that the negligent driving by the accused resulted in snuffing out the life of a young boy, the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court is just and proper.
Hence, this revision petition lacks merit and is dismissed .
The Registry is directed to forthwith return the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court records.
Sd/JUDGE
PMR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 85
2 issues framed by the court
Whether evidence of prosecution witnesses was sufficient to justify conviction for rash and negligent driving caused death.
Whether sentencing order for rash driving resulting in death of a minor was just and proper.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
DHANANJAYA G
STATE OF KARNATAKA
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
