Partly allowed

Sri. Girish Babu v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2023CRL.RP/826/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court allowed a criminal revision petition to set aside a Sessions Court dismissal of an appeal on limitation grounds. The Court imposed a cost and remanded the case to the Sessions Court to decide the appeal on merit.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in part; impugned order set aside; accused directed to deposit Rs.25,000; case remanded to Sessions Court for disposal on merits within two months.

Sri. Girish Babu Vs the State of Karnataka by — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 826 of 2020 NC: 2023:KHC:40483

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.826 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. GIRISH BABU S/O GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.6, 2^ND MAIN ROAD MOHAN KUMAR NAGAR YESHAVANTHAPURA BENGALURU - 566 022

¶10

NOW R/AT CHONDURUVANDLI PALLI GORANTLA MANDAL ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT - 515 231 ANDHRAPRADESH STATE.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed AND: by MADHURI S Location: High THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY Court of Karnataka JALAHALLI TRAFFIC POLICE JALAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 013. REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2020, PASSED BY THE LEARNED LVII

¶18

2 - CRL.RP No. 826 of 2020 NC: 2023:KHC:40483

¶19

ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU IN CRL. APPEAL NO.2516/2019, WHICH WAS PREFERRED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 27.02.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT III AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.16357/2015 TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C is by the accused, challenging his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A I.P.C and Sections 134(b) r/w Section 187 of IMV

¶23

Act and Section 3 (1) r/w Section 181 of IMV Act, which came to be confirmed by the Sessions Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the accused on the ground of delay.

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to their rank before the trial Court.

¶25

A charge sheet came to be filed against accused

¶26

for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A I.P.C r/w Sections 134(B), 187, 3 (1) r/w Section 181 of

¶27

¶28

CRL.RP No. 826 of 2020 NC: 2023:KHC:40483

¶29

IMV Act alleging that on 01.05.2015 at 6:30 p.m, accused being the driver of Ford Figo car bearing registration No.KA-05/MH-4960 drove the same in a rash or negligent manner on Air Force East Road from M.S.Palya towards Gangamma Circle and near 16 Tetra Air Force School dashed against motorcycle bearing registration No.KA45/K-8132 and proceeded further and hit Maruthi van bearing registration No.KA-04/MB-4079. As a result of the accident, the rider of the motorcycle by name Nandeesh sustained grievous injuries and died and the Maruti van

¶30

was also damaged. After the accident, accused failed to provide medical assistance to the injured and also inform the nearest police.

¶31

Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed the

¶32

trial.

¶33

On behalf of prosecution 8 witnesses are

¶34

examined as PW-1 to 8 and Ex.P1 to 11 are marked.

¶35

4 - CRL.RP No. 826 of 2020 NC: 2023:KHC:40483

¶36

During the course of his statement under

¶37

Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has denied the

¶38

incriminating evidence.

¶39

He has not led any defence evidence. He got

¶40

marked Ex.D1 during the cross-examination of prosecution witness.

¶41

Vide the impugned judgment and order the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him as detailed below:

¶42

(i) To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence p/u/s 279 of IPC.

¶43

ii) To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence p/u/s 304(a) of IPC.

¶44

iii) To pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence p/u/s 187 IMV Act.

¶45

iv) To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/for the offence p/u/s 3(1) r/w Sec 181 of IMV Act.

¶46

5 - CRL.RP No. 826 of 2020 NC: 2023:KHC:40483

¶47

Accused filed Crl.A.No.2516/2019 after lapse of 987 days, before the Sessions Court.

¶48

Along with the appeal memo accused also filed application for condonation of delay.

¶49

Vide the impugned order Sessions Court rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently also dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

¶50

Aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court contending that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, facts and probabilities of the case. It is against the weight of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. There is no judicial application of mind by the trial Court. The Sessions Court while dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation has failed to re-appreciate the evidence and thereby lost an opportunity to the accused to prove his innocence.

¶51

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶52

¶53

CRL.RP No. 826 of 2020 NC: 2023:KHC:40483

¶54

During the course of arguments learned counsel for accused submitted that on account of the Sessions Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, the opportunity to the accused to prove his innocence is lost.

¶55

As the first Appellate Court, it is incumbent upon the Sessions Court to re-appreciate the evidence and examine whether the trial Court has erred in accepting the case of the prosecution and convicting the accused. He would further submit that matter requires consideration by the Sessions Court and it is a good case for remand and prays to allow the petition, condone the delay and remand the case to the Sessions Court for deciding the appeal on merits.

¶56

So far as the appeal filed by the accused, challenging his conviction and sentence by the trial Court is concerned, it is a statutory appeal. Consequently, there was chance for the accused to demonstrate that the allegations against him are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is true that there was inordinate delay of 987

¶57

¶58

CRL.RP No. 826 of 2020 NC: 2023:KHC:40483

¶59

days in filing the appeal. Of course the delay is not satisfactorily explained by the accused and it does not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the reasons assigned for the delayed filing of the appeal. However, while dealing with condonation of delay, especially in case of statutory appeals, the Courts are required to be liberal. Consequence of Sessions Court refusing to condone the delay is that the accused who is convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment has lost a valuable right in convincing the Court that he is not guilty and the evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home guilt to him.

¶60

Such being the case, the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court in refusing to condone the delay is too harsh. For the delay in filing the appeal, the Sessions Court ought to have imposed some cost and condone the delay and decided the matter on merit instead of dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that

¶61

¶62

CRL.RP No. 826 of 2020 NC: 2023:KHC:40483

¶63

it is a case for remand with a direction to the Sessions Court to decide the appeal on merit. Of course for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal and also filing the present petition, some cost is required to be imposed. Considering the length of delay, this Court is of the considered opinion that directing the accused to pay cost of Rs.25,000/- would meet the ends of justice and accordingly the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(i) Revision petition filed by the accused is partly allowed.

¶66

(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 13.03.2020, in Crl.A.No.2516/2019 on the file of LVI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, rejecting application for condonation of delay and consequent dismissal of appeal as barred by limitation is set aside, subject to condition that the accused shall deposit cost of Rs.25,000/before the Sessions Court, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.

¶67

¶68

CRL.RP No. 826 of 2020 NC: 2023:KHC:40483

¶69

(iii) The accused shall appear before the Sessions Court on 11.12.2023, without waiting for further notice.

¶70

(iv) The Sessions Court shall hear the matter on merit and dispose of the same in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of deposit of cost.

¶71

(v) The Registry to furnish certified copy of the orders to the accused forthwith.

¶72

(vi) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Sessions Court through e-mail.

¶73

(vii) The Registry is further directed to send the trial Court record as well as Sessions Court records to the Sessions Court, under intimation to the trial Court regarding transmission of trial Court record to the Sessions Court.

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

RR/ASN

Sri. Girish Babu v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Girish Babu v. the State of Karnataka by

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. M. Ramanjaneya. a. Vs Sri. a. Joseph Vijaya Kumar

State of Karnataka Vs Sri P Muralidhara Rao

Nandeeshwara Vs State of Karnataka

Marappa S/O Basavanneppa Kavalad Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ekbal Ahamed Vs Sri Basavaraju D S

Mrs Manasa Rajan Vs State of Karnataka by Marathalli P S