Partly allowed

Channegowda P v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2023CRL.RP/290/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for rash and negligent driving causing injury. The Court upheld the convictions but substituted the custodial sentence with a fine.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. 25,000/- to victim as compensation, Rs. 5,000/- to State exchequer) instead of imprisonment.

Channegowda P Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - CRL.RP No. 290 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 290 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

CHANNEGOWDA P., S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O PANCHEGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE, KEREGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TQ. AND DIST., PIN-571401.

¶8

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJA L., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KEREGODU POLICE STATION, MANDYA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENGALURU-01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

¶12

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, IN CRL.APPEAL NO.71/2018 DATED 11.01.2019, AND ALSO JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE LEARNED 1^ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MANDYA IN C.C.NO.201/2016 DATED 17.10.2018 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337 AND

¶13

¶14

CRL.RP No. 290 of 2019

¶15

338 OF THE IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGED CHARGES.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This revision petition is filed challenging the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.10.2018 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandya, (for short, ‘the Trial Court’) in C.C. No.201/2016 by which the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the M.V. Act.) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of the IPC and further sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.200/- for the offence punishable under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the M.V. Act'). The petitioner is also aggrieved by the Judgment dated 11.01.2019 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,

¶19

¶20

CRL.RP No. 290 of 2019

¶21

Mandya, (for short, ‘the Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.71/2018 confirming the aforesaid Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

¶22

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

¶23

The case of the prosecution was that CW.2, a minor daughter of CW.1, was travelling in a school van on 31.12.2015. At about 5 p.m., she alighted from the school van at a bus stop near Public Works Department (PWD) office and was walking on the footpath on the left side of the road to reach the medical shop belonging to/owned by her father. At that time, the accused rode his motorbike bearing registration No.KA.11.X.8434 (henceforth referred to as ‘the motorbike’) in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her resulting in injuries to her. The accused without attending to the injured, sped away from the place. Later, a complaint was lodged against the accused. The jurisdictional Police took up investigation and recorded the statement of eye-witnesses and also the witnesses who are part of the mahazar drawn at the spot. The accused was apprehended and was released on bail

¶24

¶25

CRL.RP No. 290 of 2019

¶26

and the vehicle was also subjected to inspection by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who submitted his report that the accident was not due to any mechanical failure. The investigating officer secured the wound certificate and thereafter, filed a chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC read with Section 187 of the M.V. Act.

¶27

The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and issued process to the accused and secured his presence and released him on bail. Copy of the chargesheet was furnished to him and the statement of accusation was read over to him and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and marked documents as Exs.P1 to P11. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded and he denied the incriminating evidence against him. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence.

¶28

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 5 who were the eye-witnesses, established the rash and negligent riding by the accused. The injuries suffered by Miss.Geshma - PW.2 was

¶29

¶30

CRL.RP No. 290 of 2019

¶31

established by Ex.P11 and the sketch of the scene of the accident as per Ex.P10 was also proved. Hence, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond doubt and hence, convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC read with Section 187 of the M.V. Act and sentenced him to: undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/and in default of payment of fine, directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC; undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under Section 337 of the IPC and further sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days for the offence punishable under Section 187 of the IPC.

¶32

Being aggrieved by the above, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.71/2018.

¶33

¶34

CRL.RP No. 290 of 2019

¶35

The Appellate Court secured the records of the Trial Court, heard the learned counsel for the accused and the Public Prosecutor and framed points for consideration and after reappreciating the evidence on record, held that the prosecution had proved the offences committed by the accused beyond doubt and hence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment of conviction and consequent sentence passed by the Trial Court.

¶36

Being aggrieved by the above, the present revision petition is filed.

¶37

Learned counsel for the accused / petitioner submitted that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to consider that on the date of the accident, the road where the accident occurred was under repair and maintenance and therefore, there was only a lane available for the vehicles to move. He submitted that this lane was used not only by two wheelers but also by pedestrians. He submitted that PW.2 - injured victim did not see the moving traffic and suddenly crossed the road, which resulted in the accident. He, therefore, submitted that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court did not

¶38

¶39

CRL.RP No. 290 of 2019

¶40

consider this evidence, but merely relied upon sketch at Ex.P10 to return a finding of guilt of the accused. He submitted that at any rate, punishment prescribed for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC is imprisonment or fine or both and therefore, this Court may consider imposing fine rather than sentencing the accused to be imprisoned for six months.

¶41

Learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the accused was riding a motorcycle on a footpath endangering human life and caused grievous injury to PW.2. He, therefore, submitted that the accused does not deserve any sympathy.

¶42

The records of the Trial Court disclose that PW.2 was the victim who deposed that it was the accused who rode the motorbike in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her resulting in injury. PW.1, the father of the victimPW.2, was the owner of the medical shop near the spot of the accident and he deposed that his daughter got down from the school van and was walking on the footpath. He deposed that the accused came from behind and rode his motorbike and

¶43

8 - CRL.RP No. 290 of 2019

¶44

dashed against PW.2 resulting in injuries to her. PW.3 was yet another eye-witness who supported the case of the prosecution and he claimed that it was the accused who dashed against PW.2. PW.5 was also an eye witness who deposed that it was the accused who was negligent in riding the motorbike and causing the accident. PW.6 was the driver of the school van who deposed that on the date of the accident, he stopped the school van near the PWD office and PW.2 alighted from the van and later, he saw that PW.2 had fallen on the road, while the two wheeler ridden by the accused also fell on the road. PW.7 was the owner of the motorbike who deposed that it was the accused who was riding the motorbike at the time of the accident. The motor vehicle inspector deposed as PW.10 and he was of the opinion that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects in the motorbike. The sketch (Ex.P10) of the accident prepared by PW.11 shows that the accused was riding the motorbike on the footpath and he caused the accident. The accused did not choose to explain the circumstances under which the accident occurred in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The fact that the accused was riding his motorbike on the footpath meant for the

¶45

¶46

CRL.RP No. 290 of 2019

¶47

use of pedestrians itself demonstrates that he was riding it rashly and negligently and the injuries caused by the accused is also proved by the wound certificate at Ex.P11. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court were therefore justified in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC read with Section 187 of the M.V. Act. However, while sentencing the accused, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court ought to have considered that the punishment prescribed for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC as also under Section 187 of the M.V. Act is imprisonment or fine or both and there is no circumstance that warrant the accused to be dealt with harshly. In that view of the matter, this Court considers it appropriate to impose the sentence of fine of a sum of Rs.30,000/-. Hence, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The revision petition is allowed in part. The impugned Judgment dated 17.10.2018 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandya, in C.C. No.201/2016 convicting the petitioner / accused for the

¶50

10 -

¶51

CRL.RP No. 290 of 2019

¶52

offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC read with Section 187 of the M.V. Act and the affirming Judgment dated 11.01.2019 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Criminal Appeal No.71/2018 are upheld. However, in modification of the impugned sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C. No.201/2016 which was upheld by the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.71/2018, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- for the aforesaid offences out of which, a sum of Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to PW.2 - Smt. Geshma as compensation and the remaining Rs.5,000/shall be appropriated to the State exchequer as expense.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

SMA

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Channegowda P v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Channegowda P 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

Sri Venkataramana Pai G.N. Vs Sri. K.N. Subramanya

Siddaiah H S Vs State of Karnataka

H N Chandrashekar Vs H K Rachappaji

Mr. K. Abdul Shukur Vs Mr. Haji S Mohammad

Smt. a J Lalitha Vs B R Krishnappa

Sri K Raghavendra Vs Sri G Poornesha