Dismissed

Mr Annu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Aug 2023CRL.RP/495/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka Criminal Revision Petition. Petitioner driver of lorry convicted under IPC and Motor Vehicles Act for rash driving causing death. Court rejected claim of perversity and dismissed revision.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed with direction to Magistrate to serve sentence.

What the court decided

Mr Annu Vs the State of Karnataka — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:30818 CRL.RP No. 495 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 495 OF 2015

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

MR. ANNU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O LATE BAILA, R/AT DARKASTH,HOSANGADI, MARURU VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK-574 197, D.K DISTRICT.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. SANDESH SHETTY .T, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by RENUKAMBA K G

¶10

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARKALA CIRCLE, KARKALA-574 104, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 27.2.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. C.J. AND J.M.F.C., KARKALA IN C.C.NO.419/2009 AND ORDER DATED 20.4.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI IN CRL.A.NO.35/2013 U/S 279,337 AND 304A OF IPC AND SEC.134(a)(b) R/W 187 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT.

¶15

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

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:30818 CRL.RP No. 495 of 2015

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This revision is filed by the revision petitioner/accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala in CC.No.419/2009 vide judgment dated 27.02.2013 and confirmed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi, in Crl.A.No.35/2013 vide judgment dated 20.04.2015.

¶19

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

¶20

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the accused is the driver of a lorry bearing No.KA-20B-3404 and on 24.06.2009, at 3.45 p.m., he drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner from Sacharipete and while taking a turn towards Mundkur, he drove it negligently and dashed motor cycle bearing No.KA-20Q-943, which was driven by Harish Devadiga along with pillion driver Anil Jogi. As a result of this accident, Harish Devadiga died in the hospital on the same day and the pillion driver Anil Jogi sustained injuries. On the basis of the complaint, the Investigating Officer has investigated the

¶21

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:30818 CRL.RP No. 495 of 2015

¶22

crime and submitted the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of I.P.C and under Section 134(a)(b) r/w Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V. Act’). After submission of the charge sheet, in pursuance of the summons issued, the accused appeared and he was enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers were furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The plea was also recorded and he denied the accusation.

¶23

The prosecution has examined in all eleven witnesses and placed reliance on twelve documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 to prove the guilt of the accused. After 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. The case of the accused is of total denial. However, he did not choose to lead any oral and documentary evidence in support of his evidence.

¶24

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 and 304A of I.P.C. and Section 134(a)(b) r/w

¶25

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:30818 CRL.RP No. 495 of 2015

¶26

Section 187 of the M.V. Act and imposed sentence of imprisonment and fine.

¶27

Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused/revision petitioner has approached the Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi, in Crl.A.No.35/2013 and the learned Sessions Judge after reappreciating 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/revision petitioner is before this Court by way of this revision.

¶28

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

¶29

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that there are lot of contradictions and improvement in the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and all the witnesses are interested witnesses. He would also contend that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record to show that the accident is because of sole negligence on the part of the accused, but the evidence on record discloses

¶30

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:30818 CRL.RP No. 495 of 2015

¶31

that the accident is because of negligence on the part of the rider of the two-wheeler who succumbed because of the injuries. Hence, he would assert that both the Courts below have committed an error in convicting the accused and judgment of both the Courts below suffers from perversity. As such, he would seek for allowing this revision by acquitting the revision petitioner.

¶32

Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent would support the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the Courts below. He would contend that all the witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution and though they were cross-examined at length, nothing was elicited so as to impeach their evidence. He also contends that there is no explanation in the 313 statement of the accused. Hence, he would contend that no perversity is found in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the Courts below. Hence, he would seek for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶33

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

¶34

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:30818 CRL.RP No. 495 of 2015

¶35

“Whether the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court are perverse, arbitrary and erroneous so as to call for any interference by this Court in this revision?”

¶36

It is an undisputed fact that the accused was the driver of the offending lorry when it met with an accident on 24.06.2009, at 3.45 p.m. at the junction. It is also an admitted fact that there was collision between the lorry and two wheeler bearing No.KA-20Q-943. It is also not disputed that accused was the driver of the offending lorry and the rider of the motorcycle succumbed because of the injuries in the hospital. The accused has simply disputed a rash and negligent driving on his part.

¶37

Admittedly, the accident has occurred on Kinnigoli road near the junction to Sacheripete. Admittedly, the accused was driving his vehicle from Sacheripete and he was joining Mundkur Kinnigoli road. Further, two-wheeler was coming from Mundkur. The allegations of the prosecution disclose that the driver of the offending lorry suddenly moved on the wrong side in order to join the main road and in the said process, he hit the two-wheeler which has resulted in the accident.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:30818 CRL.RP No. 495 of 2015

¶40

PW1 is the father of the deceased. However, he is not an eyewitness. PW2 is the pillion driver of the two-wheeler and he has specifically deposed that they were proceeding from Mundkur towards Kinnigoli and accused drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner from Sacheripete and suddenly moved on the wrong side, resulting in the accident. Though this witness was cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for accused, nothing was elicited and it is elicited that the accident has occurred in the junction on the left side of the road while moving from Mundkur to Kinnigoli i.e., on the eastern edge of the main road wherein the Sacheripete road joins the main road.

¶41

PW3 claims to be an eyewitness and he has also supported the case of the prosecution regarding he witnessing the accident, but he has turned hostile regarding drawing the scene of offence mahazar. To this extent, he was treated as hostile by the learned prosecutor and was cross-examined. PW4 is another eyewitness and he has also supported the case of the prosecution. PW5 Sunil Poojari is the spot mahazar witness.

¶42

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:30818 CRL.RP No. 495 of 2015

¶43

PW6 claims to be another eyewitness but he has turned hostile. The entire evidence lead by the prosecution clearly establishes that the accused was coming from Sacharipete and was joining the Mundkur Kinnigoli main road and without stopping vehicle in the cross road/junction he suddenly moved the vehicle on the right side in order to join the main road and in that process, he hit the two-wheeler which was moving on the left side of the road. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that all the witnesses were interested witnesses. He further contends that there are lot of variances in the evidence of the witnesses. However, on perusal of the cross-examination, it is evident that no contradictions or improvements were got marked so as to put Investigating Officer. No contradictions were highlighted and put to Investigating Officer and hence, the said arguments holds no water.

¶44

Apart from that, since the accident and involvement of vehicles are admitted and accused being the driver of the lorry, it is for him to explain as to what precautions he has taken to avoid the accident. Since he is joining the main road he was required to stop and proceed, but the 313 statement

¶45

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:30818 CRL.RP No. 495 of 2015

¶46

given by the accused discloses that no such defense was put forward. Even accused has not entered into witness box to explain as to what precautions were taken. No suggestion were made to the prosecution witnesses in this regard. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the fact within the knowledge of a particular person is required to be proved by him, but in the instant case, the accused being the best witness to say how the accident has occurred, he is not prepared to explain the same.

¶47

Looking to these facts and circumstances, no perversity or illegality is found in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the Courts below does not call for any interference in this revision. As such, the point under consideration is answered in the negative. Hence, revision petition being devoid of merits, does not survive for consideration and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:30818 CRL.RP No. 495 of 2015

¶49

10 -

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The revision stands dismissed .

¶52

The learned Magistrate is directed to secure the presence of the accused for serving sentence.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Mr Annu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Mr Annu 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

Mohammed Shafi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shazia Tabassum Vs Mohammed Ishaq

Dr H Hanumareddy Vs Smt Laxmi

Narasimharaju H Vs R. Govindegowda

Sri. Basavaraju B Gundenahalli Vs Yogesh H.L.

Mrs Nandini Alva Vs Sri N Vinod