Dismissed

B Doddabyraiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Aug 2023CRL.RP/963/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by a bus driver convicted of rash and negligent driving causing death. The Court held the conviction was supported by evidence, res ipsa loquitor principles applied due to lack of defense explanation, and rejected the plea to protect service conditions as it was not a precedential issue.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition stands dismissed. Trial Court directed to secure presence of accused for serving sentence.

B Doddabyraiah Vs State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:30434 CRL.RP No. 963 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.963 OF 2015

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

B DODDABYRAIAH S/O LATE BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, HEBBUR HOBLI - 572 120 TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M.C.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY MANDYA RURAL POLICE MANDYA - 571 401

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

Digitally signed by RENUKAMBA K G

¶15

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 30.01.2013 PASSED IN C.C.NO.287/2009 BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, MANDYA AND JUDGMENT DATED 22.08.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.42/2013, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶18

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

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:30434 CRL.RP No. 963 of 2015

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This revision is filed by the accused-revision

¶22

petitioner under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by JMFC, Mandya in C.C.No.287/2009 dated 30.01.2013 and confirmed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Mandya in Criminal Appeal No.42/2013 vide judgment dated 22.08.2015.

¶23

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

¶24

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that on 30.10.2008 at 8.00 p.m., on Bengaluru-Mysuru Highway near Halebudanuru Village within the jurisdiction of Mandya Rural Police Station, accused being the driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-06-F-271 drove it in a rash and negligent manner endangering the human life and public safety and dashed against the Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No.KA-11/T-8588-8589 going

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:30434 CRL.RP No. 963 of 2015

¶26

in front of the Bus from backside and then entered the house of CW-12 situated on the left side of the road. As a result, the house was damaged and collapsed and one child Nandini and CW-10 to CW-12, suffered simple and grievous injuries and the inmates of the bus i.e., CW-13 to 29 also suffered simple as well as grievous injuries. Later on, Nandini died while being shifted to the Hospital.

¶27

On the basis of the complaint, FIR came to be issued and after investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued process and accused appeared and was enlarged on bail. The plea under Sections 279, 338, 337 and 304-A of IPC was framed against the accused and accused denied the accusation. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined in all 19 witnesses and also placed reliance on 23 documents. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:30434 CRL.RP No. 963 of 2015

¶30

appearing against him in the case of the prosecution. The case of the accused is total denial.

¶31

After having heard the arguments, after

¶32

appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC by imposing fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively with default sentence to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month and for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC imposed simple imprisonment of six months with fine of Rs.500/- with default clause.

¶33

Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused approached the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mandya in Criminal Appeal No.42/2013. Learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Magistrate.

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:30434 CRL.RP No. 963 of 2015

¶35

7. Against these two concurrent findings, the

¶36

accused is before this Court by way of revision.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶38

Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner would contend that none of the witnesses have identified the accused and the material witnesses have turned hostile. He would contend that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. Alternatively, he would also contend that in case of conviction, observation needs to be made that conviction and sentence shall not affect the service conditions of the petitioner and in support of his submission, he placed reliance of judgment of this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.928/2005 dated 14.03.2008.

¶39

Per contra, learned HCGP would support the judgment of conviction and would contend that the accused drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and

¶40

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:30434 CRL.RP No. 963 of 2015

¶41

hit the Tractor and Trailer from backside and then again hit the road side house by entering the house which itself establish the gravity of the offence. Hence, she would seek for dismissal of the revision.

¶42

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

¶43

a) Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court are perverse, erroneous and arbitrary so as to call for interference of this Court?

¶44

There is no serious dispute of the fact that the accused was the driver of the offending KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-06/F-271. It is also not under serious dispute that the bus hit rear end of the Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No.KA-11/T-8588-8589 and then entered the left road side house by causing damage to the house as well as injuries to the inmates of the

¶45

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:30434 CRL.RP No. 963 of 2015

¶46

house as well as to the inmates of the bus. As a result, one of the inmate of the house succumbed because of the injuries. The death, simple as well as grievous injuries are also undisputed. No doubt, number of witnesses were examined but the material witnesses are reported to have turned Hostile.

¶47

However, PW-9, PW-10, PW-15 and

¶48

PW-16 are inmates of the bus and they deposed regarding rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending bus. There is no serious dispute as to the manner in which the accident has occurred. Now it is submitted during the course of arguments that as the Driver of the Tractor and Trailer suddenly moved on the right side of the road, in order to avoid the collision, the bus hit the Tractor and Trailer and then entered the house. But to substantiate its defence, no evidence is placed. The sketch of the accident clearly disclose that after having hit the Tractor and Trailer on the rear end, the bus moved left side of the long distance nearly to the extent of 100 ft and

¶49

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:30434 CRL.RP No. 963 of 2015

¶50

then it entered the house which itself prima facie establish

¶51

the speed of the vehicle.

¶52

No doubt the speed of the vehicle itself is not criteria to decide rash and negligent act. But, it is for the accused to explain as to under what circumstances accident has occurred and he is the best witness in the given circumstances to explain precautions he has taken under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. He has not attempted to give any explanation and his 313 statement is also silent. Since the scene of offence, Mahazar and sketch produced at Ex.P2 are not disputed or challenged, the principles of res ipsa loquitor are directly applicable for the facts and circumstances of the case in the hand. Hence, both the Courts below have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in proper prospective and convicted the accused by imposing the reasonable sentence. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be said to be perverse, erroneous or arbitrary so as to call for interference.

¶53

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:30434 CRL.RP No. 963 of 2015

¶54

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner

¶55

would contend that since the revision petitioner-accused is the driver of the KSRTC bus, an observation that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence shall not come in the way of his service conditions needs to be made and in support of his contention, he placed reliance

¶56

on an unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.928/2005 dated 14.03.2008 ( Niranjan Murthy Vs. State of Karnataka ).

¶57

But, it is not a precedent so as to make observation regarding this aspect and the precedent can be only in respect of question of law. A discretion exercised by the Court cannot act as a precedent. Apart from that the accused being the driver of the KSRTC bus is governed under the regulations of the KSRTC and it is for the concerned Corporation to take appropriate action in this regard and Court cannot direct the KSRTC in this regard to act in a particular manner that too when the KSRTC is not a party before this Court. Hence, the

¶58

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:30434 CRL.RP No. 963 of 2015

¶59

principles enunciated in the above cited decision cannot act as a precedent to the case in hand and cannot be made applicable to the case in hand.

¶60

Looking to the facts and circumstances, revision

¶61

petition being devoid of any merits, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the point under consideration is answered in the negative. As such, the revision petition fails and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i) Revision petition stands dismissed.

¶64

ii) Registry to send back the TCR to the trial Court along with the copy of this order with a direction to the trial Court to secure the presence of the accused/ revision petitioner for serving the sentence.

¶65

Sd/- JUDGE

¶66

MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

B Doddabyraiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Doddabyraiah 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Rama Prasad @ Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. v. Prabhakar Reddy Vs Sri. B.M. Rangaswamy

Sathish Shetty K Vs Self Growth Nidhi Ltd.

Khader Hayath Basha Vs Shahina Banu

Abdul Nafsal Vs the State by

Sri. Adukunhi @ Adam Kunhi Vs Sri. Ganaraja B