Allowed

T Natesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2023CRL.RP/88/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, who had been convicted of rash and negligent driving causing death. The revision bench set aside both the Trial Court and Appellate Court judgments, acquitting the petitioner and ordering his release.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is acquitted of the offences and set free. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.10.2012 and the appellate judgment dated 02.01.2014 are set aside.

T Natesh Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 88 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 88 OF 2014

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

T. NATESH S/O TANGAPPAN AGED 46 YEARS, DRIVER, KSRTC BADGE NO.2717 MADIKERI DEPOT, MADIKERI. R/O KHP COLONY, VIDYANAGAR, MADIKERI.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KARUMBAIAH T.A., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY C.P.I. KUSHALNAGAR CIRCLE, KUSHALNAGAR, KODAGU DISTRICT.

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KRISHNAKUMAR 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 DATED 02.01.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI IN CRL.A.NO.60/2012 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 05.10.2012 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., MADIKERI IN C.C.NO.90/2011 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER

¶15

¶16

CRL.RP No. 88 of 2014

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 05.10.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Kodagu, Madikeri (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in C.C.No.90/2011, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months along with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated 02.01.2014 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri (henceforth referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A.No.60/2012 by which, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court was upheld.

¶20

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arraigned before the Trial Court. The petitioner herein was the accused.

¶21

¶22

CRL.RP No. 88 of 2014

¶23

The prosecution of the accused was launched on the basis of a written information by CW.1, that at 6.30 a.m. on 05.07.2011, he was standing outside his house on the road margin. He saw a Swaraj Mazda truck bearing registration No.KA-19-C-6148 moving from Shuntikoppa towards Kushalnagar and that a bus bearing registration No.KA-09-F4738 was moving from Kushalnagar to Shuntikoppa in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Swaraj Mazda Truck. As a result, the driver of the truck suffered grievous injuries on his head and face and died at the spot. The cleaner of the bus also suffered injuries on his head. The cleaner disclosed his name as Mohammed Sharif and name of the driver of Swaraj Mazda as Honnappa Gowda, while he learnt the driver of the bus was T. Natesh. He stated that the passengers in the bus was also suffered injuries. He stated that the deceased was shifted to the hospital at Shuntikoppa. He alleged that the driver of the bus was negligent and responsible for the accident and sought action against him. CW.24 registered Crime No.69/2011 at 8.30 a.m. for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC and submitted F.I.R. to the Court. He recorded the statement of the

¶24

¶25

CRL.RP No. 88 of 2014

¶26

passengers in the bus and the statement of the eye-witnesses. He conducted a spot inspection and seized both the vehicles. CW.23 recorded the statement of the injured victims. The investigation was thereafter taken up by CW.25. later, CW.25 conducted an inquest on the deceased and received the statement of injured victims, which was recorded by CW.23. He requested the Doctor to conduct a postmortem and also requested the Motor Vehicle Inspector to inspect the vehicles. The accused surrendered before the police, who was arrested and later released on bail. The statement of CW.2 to CW.4 was recorded and the report of the motor vehicle inspector and the postmortem were secured. He also secured the wound certificate of the injured victims and submitted a charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC.

¶27

The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC. The substance of accusation was read over to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 and PW.8, who were the eyewitnesses amongst whom, PW.2 and PW.8 turned hostile.

¶28

¶29

CRL.RP No. 88 of 2014

¶30

PW.4, PW.5 and PW.7 were the passengers in the bus amongst whom PW.5 turned hostile. PW.6 was the cleaner of the bus, who supported the prosecution. PW.9 was the witness to the spot mahazar and seizure mahazar, who supported the case of the prosecution. PW.11 was a witness to the spot mahazar and seizure mahazar, who supported the prosecution and deposed that the truck was completely damaged, while the driver side portion of the bus was damaged. He deposed that the truck was on the left side of the road. PW.12 was the Head Constable, who recorded the statements of the injured passengers and furnished them before the investigating officer. PW.13 was the Assistant Sub-Inspector, who drew the spot mahazar and seized the vehicles under a mahazar. He handed over the further investigation to PW.10, who conducted an inquest and requested the Doctor to conduct a postmortem and also requested the Motor Vehicle Inspector to inspect the vehicles. He recorded the statement of CW.2 to CW.8 and received the wound certificate of CW.5 to CW.8 and thereafter, submitted a charge-sheet.

¶31

The Trial Court considered the oral and documentary evidence and held that the evidence of PW.1

¶32

6 - CRL.RP No. 88 of 2014

¶33

proved that the accused was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and he dashed against the truck causing the death and injuries to others. It perused the sketch prepared, which disclosed that the truck was moving on the left side of the road, while the bus was driven from the opposite side at a high speed which dashed against the truck. The Trial Court therefore, held that the accused was guilty of the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and hence, convicted him for the said offences and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months along with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC. He was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC.

¶34

Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused filed Crl.A.No.60/2012 before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court secured the records of the Trial Court, heard the counsel for the accused and the Public Prosecutor, framed points for consideration and after re-appreciating the

¶35

¶36

CRL.RP No. 88 of 2014

¶37

evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court.

¶38

Being aggrieved by the judgments of both the

¶39

Courts, the accused has filed this revision petition.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that PW.1 did not know the contents of the complaint (Ex.P1) and the spot mahazar Ex.P2. He submitted that PW.1 did not read the contents of Exs.P1 and P2 and he was not aware of its contents. He submitted that PW.1 deposed that he signed on Ex.P1 and P2 on the directions of the police. The learned counsel submitted that PW.1 was an interested witness, as he claimed that his child met with an accident at the same spot. At any rate, he submitted that PW.1 was not an eye-witness to the accident, but was planted by the prosecution. The learned counsel submitted that PW.2 did not identify the accused. In his cross-examination also, he deposed that he did not state before the police that the accident was caused by the accused. However, he admitted that the accused was a driver in the KSRTC between Mysuru and Madikeri. He submitted that this witness did not see the

¶41

¶42

CRL.RP No. 88 of 2014

¶43

accident, but later came to know after hearing a deafening sound of the accident. He submitted that PW.3 also did not see the accident as he was in his house. He submitted that many

¶44

of the injured passengers in the bus did not support the prosecution. PW.8 who was cited as an eye-witness did not support the prosecution as he claimed that he was not able to say who was at fault and due to whose negligence, the accident was caused. Learned counsel therefore, contended that the Trial Court merely relied upon the evidence of PW.1 to return a finding of guilt of the accused. He submitted that as per the sketch at Ex.P2, the road curved towards Kushalnagar and the vehicle driven by the deceased suddenly entered the road, resulting in an accident. He submitted that this was a clear case of an accident, which was beyond the control of the accused and therefore, no rash and negligent driving can be attributed to the accused.

¶45

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State submitted that the presence of PW.1 near the spot of the accident was natural as he deposed that his house was situate alongside Kushalnagar - Shuntikoppa road. He submitted that the involvement of the

¶46

9 - CRL.RP No. 88 of 2014

¶47

two vehicles is proved beyond doubt in view of the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5, who were travelling in the bus driven by the accused as well as the evidence of PW.6, who was the cleaner of the lorry. He submitted that seizure of both the vehicles was proved and the death of the driver of the lorry due to the injury sustained in the accident was also established. He therefore, submitted that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were justified in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC.

¶48

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. I have also perused the records of the Trial Court, its judgment as well as the judgment of the Appellate Court.

¶49

The sketch at Ex.P2 shows that at the spot of the accident, the road measured 7 meters wide and curved like an arch. The accused was driving the bus in question from Kushalnagar to Shuntikoppa at 6.30 a.m. in the morning. The deceased who was driving the truck, had parked it near a road

¶50

10 - CRL.RP No. 88 of 2014

¶51

side tea stall and after having tea, he started off and entered the road, but was dashed against by the bus driven by the accused. Since the road was an arched curve, it is quite possible that the accused to negotiate the curve, moved the bus to the center of the road and in the process, dashed against the truck that moved into the road suddenly. Ex.P2 shows that the house of PW.1 was located just next to the road. However, PW.1 deposed that the complaint was not written by him but was written by the police and that the spot mahazar was also written by them in the police station and that he was not aware of the contents. PW.2 turned hostile as he claimed that he did not see the accident and claimed that by the time he reached the accident spot the police had already shifted the vehicles. This witness was not helpful to the prosecution. PW.3, who was claimed to be an eye-witness deposed that he was in his house at the time of the accident. PW.4 was a passenger in the bus, who claimed she was sitting in the rear portion of the bus near the door, which obviously was on the left side of the bus and she could not have seen the accident. PW.5 was also a passenger in the bus, who claimed that he was sleeping at the time of the accident and he could

¶52

11 - CRL.RP No. 88 of 2014

¶53

not have seen the accident. P.W.6 was the cleaner of the truck, who deposed that the deceased drove the truck from Jodupala at 5.30 a.m. He deposed that the road at the spot of the accident was curved and congested. PW.7 was a passenger of the bus, who admitted that the road was curved and congested

¶54

and claimed that he was seated behind the driver/accused. P.W.8 also claimed to be an eye-witness, but he turned hostile. PW.9 was the witness to the seizure mahazar and he supported the prosecution.

¶55

A perusal of the aforesaid evidence and visualization of the scene of the crime shows that the bus was driven from Kushalnagar to Shuntikoppa, which is a regular route and that being a major district road, the accused was entitled to drive it at a safe speed and since it was 6.30 a.m. in the morning, the accused must have expected less traffic on the road. The fact that the road at the accident spot was 7 meters and was curved and congested as admitted by all the witnesses which must have compelled the accused to drive it on to the middle of the road to negotiate the curve and the deceased could have suddenly come out to the road without noticing the bus, resulting in an accident. The damage caused

¶56

12 -

¶57

CRL.RP No. 88 of 2014

¶58

to the bus shows that the right side of the bus was damaged, while front portion of the truck was completely damaged giving an impression that the accused did attempt to avoid the accident, but could not.

¶59

In that view of the matter, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court must have properly appreciated the evidence and must have look in the probabilities to see whether the accused was negligent. One of the photographs, which is on record discloses that the truck was just off to the road and moved suddenly on to the road giving no time for the accused to react. Under the circumstances, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court committed an error in convicting the accused.

¶60

Hence, the following

¶61

ORDER

¶62

The petition is allowed . The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Kodagu, Madikeri in C.C.No.90/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC is set aside. Consequently, the

¶63

13 -

¶64

CRL.RP No. 88 of 2014

¶65

judgment dated 02.01.2014 passed by the Principal

¶66

Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, in

¶67

Crl.A.No.60/2012 is also set aside.

¶68

The petitioner/accused is acquitted of the aforesaid offences and he is set free.

¶69

The Registry is directed to forthwith return the

¶70

Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court records.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

PMR

¶73

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

T Natesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Natesh v. 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

M/S. Jmj Agro Exports Vs M/S. Abc Enterprises

Tareeq Anwar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C.V. Srinivasegowda Vs Sri M.L. Venkatesh

Ramu Vs Deputy Commissioner

Fareed Vs the State of Karnataka

Surendrababu Vs M C Ramesh