Dismissed

Sri G Nagaraju v. State by Cpi

Karnataka HC22 Feb 2023CRL.RP/387/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition, the petitioner challenged his conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death. The Karnataka High Court rejected the argument that local witnesses were biased, upheld the trial and appellate courts' findings, and dismissed the petition, finding no illegality requiring interference.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.

Sri G Nagaraju Vs State by Cpi — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 387 OF 2015

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI G NAGARAJU S/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, NAYAK BY CASTE DRIVER OF CAR BEARING NO. KA-04/MD-3681 R/AT DODDABELI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by B A KRISHNA KUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

(BY SRI. Y S SHIVAKUMARA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE BY CPI SRIRANGAPATNA CIRCLE, SRIRANGAPATNA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 26.8.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. SR. C.J. AND J.M.F.C., SRIRANGAPATNA IN C.C.NO.117/2009 AND DATED 20.2.2015 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) IN

¶17

¶18

CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015

¶19

CRL.A.NO.5015/2014 IN BY THE TRIAL COURT AS WELL AS THE SESSIONS COURT.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This criminal revision petition is filed challenging the

¶23

judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna in C.C.No.117/2009 dated 26.08.2014 and the judgment and order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at Srirangapatna) in Crl.A.No.5015/2014.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State.

¶25

Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records which would be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this criminal revision petition are, on 26.05.2008 at about 3.30 p.m., in front of the house of Sannathammegowda on the road towards Balamuri, in

¶26

¶27

CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015

¶28

Belagola Village, the deceased N. Raghu son of M. Narayana was walking on the left side of the Belagola – Balamuri Road. The Innova car bearing Registration No. KA.04.MD.3681 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the petitioner came from the hind side and dashed against the deceased N. Raghu who fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his head. Immediately he was shifted to the hospital but on the way he died. The petitioner had no driving licence to drive any vehicle. On the basis of the complaint lodged by PW.1 - M. Kumara, FIR was registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 3 of Motor Vehicles Act. Police after investigation had filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and the petitioner claimed to be tried.

¶29

The prosecution to prove its case had examined 8 witnesses before the trial Court as PW.1 to PW.8 and also got marked 8 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The incriminating material available on record was denied by

¶30

¶31

CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015

¶32

the petitioner during his Section 313 Cr.P.C., statement. However, he did not chose to lead any defence evidence nor any document was marked in support of the defence. The trial Court after hearing the arguments on both sides, by the judgment and order dated 26.08.2014 convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and in default to pay fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.500/and in default he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Petitioner was also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 181 of Motor Vehicle Act and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

¶33

¶34

CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015

¶35

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, the petitioner had filed criminal appeal No.5015/2014, which was dismissed by the appellate Court on 20.02.2015. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record and have erred in convicting the petitioner. He submits that PWs.1 to 5 are all interested witnesses and therefore, the trial Court as well as appellate Court could not have placed reliance on the evidence of these interested witnesses . He submits that the material on record do not show that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and therefore the Courts below were not justified in convicting the petitioner. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Revision No.134/2011 disposed of on 18.12.2017 in the case of Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.

¶37

¶38

CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015

¶39

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has supported the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below and submits that the eye witnesses have clearly stated that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and the petitioner has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question by the eye witnesses. He also submits that PWs.4 and 5 who are the spot mahazar panch witnesses, have supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, the Courts below are justified in convicting the petitioner for alleged offences and accordingly, prays to dismiss the revision petition.

¶40

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed on both the sides and also perused the material available on record.

¶41

The accident in question had taken place at about 3.30 p.m., and the offending vehicle had dashed against the deceased N. Raghu who was walking on the left hand

¶42

¶43

CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015

¶44

side of the road. The vehicle in question had come from behind and dashed against him and as a result he fell down on the road and had suffered grievous injuries on his head. PW.1 who is a eye witness to the accident had lodged the complaint and during the course of his deposition he has reiterated the complaint averments and

¶45

he has also identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. PWs.2 and 3 are also the eye witnesses to the incident and they have

¶46

also deposed before the trial Court to the effect that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident and they have identified the petitioner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident.

¶47

PWs.4 and 5 who are the spot mahazar witnesses, have all supported the case of the prosecution and they have stated that police had come to the spot and drawn the spot mahazar and they have also identified their signature in the spot mahazar report which is produced as Ex.P2. PW.7 is the motor vehicle inspector who has given

¶48

¶49

CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015

¶50

a report as per Ex.P6 and he has deposed that the offending vehicle had no mechanical defect at the time of accident. PWs.6 and 8 are the investigation officers who have conducted the investigation, recorded the statement of eye witnesses and filed the charge-sheet. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court after appreciating the evidence of the eye witnesses, spot mahazar witnesses, motor vehicle inspector and the Investigation Officers have recorded a concurrent finding against the petitioner. I do

¶51

not find any illegality or irregularity in such a finding recorded by Courts below. The involvement of the petitioner in the accident in question has been established by the prosecution and the eye witnesses have clearly stated that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and there is nothing to disbelieve the version of the eye witnesses.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in Rakesh Kumar's case supra and has submitted that the eye-witnesses examined in this case are either relatives of the deceased or they are from

¶53

9 - CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015

¶54

the same village, and therefore, they have to be considered as interested witnesses and no reliance can be placed on their evidence for the purpose of convicting the petitioner. In the present case, PWs-1 to 3 who are the eye-witnesses are all from the same village. It is quite natural that in cases of road traffic accident, normally persons belonging to the locality or the village would only be the eye-witnesses and their presence at the spot is probable. Amongst three eye-witnesses, PW-1 is the distant relative of the deceased and PWs-2 & 3 are not the relatives of the deceased. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of these witnesses for the purpose of convicting the petitioner. The judgment in Rakesh Kumar's case supra, therefore, would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. These witnesses have not only spoken with regard to the rash and negligent manner in which the vehicle was driven by the petitioner, but they have also identified the

¶55

10 -

¶56

CRL.RP No. 387 of 2015

¶57

petitioner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident.

¶58

Unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate

¶59

before this Court that the judgment and order passed by the courts below are either perverse or illegal, this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. The impugned judgment and order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity which calls for interference by this Court and accordingly, I see no merit in this revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶60

SD/JUDGE

¶61

HB/KK

Sri G Nagaraju v. State by Cpi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G Nagaraju v. State by Cpi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Enforcement Officer Vs Shri C.S. Subramanian

M B Mahesh Vs State of Karnataka

Pokar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri D C Ramu Vs Sri Singri Gowda

Sridhara Ganiga Vs M/S Sri Sudhindra Finance

Sri.H.R.Vishwanath Vs M/S. Classic Coffee and Spices