Partly allowed

Naveen Kumar v. State by

Karnataka HC27 Jun 2024CRL.RP/104/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction of a bus driver under Sections 279, 337 and 427 IPC for a road accident injuring two persons and damaging a banana shop. Conviction maintained but three months' imprisonment for Section 427 set aside; fine enhanced to Rs.10,000 with compensation to the shop owner.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; three months' imprisonment under S.427 IPC set aside; fine enhanced to Rs.10,000 with Rs.5,000 compensation to shop owner; time till 31.07.2024 to pay balance fine.

Naveen Kumar Vs State by — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:24105 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 104 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NAVEEN KUMAR, S/O CHIKKA MUNISWAMACHARI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. UMASHANKAR M N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE BY TOWN POLICE STATION, CHINTAMANI, KOLARA DISTRICT, REPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI.CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 13.10.2023 IN CRL.A.NO.19/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA SITTING AT CHINTAMANI CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 13.01.2022 IN

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:24105 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2024

¶17

C.C.NO.632/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHINTAMANI AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION PASSED BY THE COURT BELOW.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard Sri.Umashankar M. N., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

¶21

The present revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C. No.632/2017 dated 13.01.2022 which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.19/2022 dated 13.10.2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of IPC.

¶22

Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

¶23

3.1. On 01.04.2017 at about 12.10 p.m. within the limits of Chintamani Town Police Station, on the road

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:24105 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2024

¶25

leading to Shalini Military hotel, the accused being the driver of K.S.R.T.C., bus bearing registration No.K.A.40-F1080 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against C.Ws.1 and 2 who were the drivers of the Honda Activa bearing registration No.K.A.50-U6071. As a result, C.W.1 and 2 sustained grievous injuries and two wheeler vehicle was damaged and sum of Rs.20,000/- was born by C.W.1. Accused after dashing against the vehicle wherein, C.W.1 was travelling, drove the bus into Banana shop of C.W.2. Therefore, charge sheet was filed.

¶26

The learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and secured the presence of the accused, charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the trial was held.

¶27

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, in all nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution and relied on twelve documentary evidence on record.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:24105 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2024

¶30

As against the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, there was no oral or documentary evidence placed on record on behalf of the accused.

¶31

The learned Trial Magistrate recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein, accused has denied all the

¶32

incriminatory materials.

¶33

Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate after hearing the parties, learned Trial Judge found that the prosecution case is acceptable and there is no explanation offered by the accused to the incriminatory materials found against him in the case of prosecution and convicted

¶34

the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of IPC and sentenced as referred to supra.

¶35

Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.19/2022.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:24105 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2024

¶38

The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records and hearing the arguments, vide judgment dated 13.10.2023, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence.

¶39

Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.

¶40

Reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, Sri.Umashankar M. N., learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contended that in the case on hand, materials are available on record that the accident has occurred and revision petitioner being the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. is not disputed.

¶41

However, he contended that accident was beyond human control and learned Trial Magistrate and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court ought not to have convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of IPC.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:24105 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2024

¶44

He further contended that in the event, this Court is up holding the order of conviction, Court may consider setting aside the simple imprisonment for a period of three months ordered by learned Trial magistrate which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC and sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶45

Per Contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments and contended that as a consequence of the accident, a pety Banana shop has been damaged to a great accident and therefore, awarding sentence of imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC is justified and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶46

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:24105 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2024

¶49

On such perusal of the material on record, as is fairly submitted by learned counsel for the revision petitioner, accident is not in dispute.

¶50

However, the driver did not offer any

¶51

explanation while recording the accused statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and did not place on record his version insofar as the accident is concerned. Therefore, guilt of the accused recorded by learned Trial Magistrate in convicting the accused for the aforesaid offenses is just and proper following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur V/s State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 (9) SC 284.

¶52

Having said thus, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court while reappreciating the material on record also concurred with the order of conviction but failed to notice that as a consequence of the accident, the damage to Banana shop has occurred and it was not intentional.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:24105 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2024

¶55

Therefore, the intention to cause the mischief

¶56

could not have been attributed to the driver.

¶57

Consequence of a road traffic accident is disastrous in some cases. Here only few persons are injured and there is a damage to the property. When there is no intentional damage caused to the property, ordering imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC cannot be countenanced in law.

¶58

Therefore, to that extent, the submissions

¶59

made on behalf of the revision petitioner needs to be judiciously considered.

¶60

23. Accordingly, the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i. Revision petition is allowed in part.

¶63

ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under

¶64

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:24105 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2024

¶65

Sections 279, 337 and 427 of IPC, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC is hereby set aside.

¶66

iii. Instead the fine amount awarded by the learned Trial Magistrate in a sum of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC is enhanced to Rs.10,000/.

¶67

iv. Of the fine amount recovered, the owner of the Banana Shop is entitled for the compensation in a sum of Rs.5,000/-.

¶68

v. Balance amount is to be appropriated towards the defraying expenses of the State.

¶69

vi. Rest of the sentence stands unaltered.

¶70

vii. Time is granted for the revision petitioner to pay the balance fine amount till 31.07.2024,

¶71

10 -

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:24105 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2024

¶73

failing which the order of the Learned Trial Magistrate stands restored automatically.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Naveen Kumar v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Kumar v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M S Nagaraj Vs Dhathathriya Batta

Sri v Govinda Vs Sri Radhakrishna M S

Sri Sannaswamy Vs the State by

Ramakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

S Sujatha Vs Manjunatha

Sri Dr v H Hanumanthappa Vs K M Manjunath