Partly allowed

Sri. Prashanth v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Apr 2024CRL.RP/1303/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court partially allowed criminal revision petition against conviction and sentence for rash and negligent driving causing bodily harm. Court upheld conviction but remitted fine portions and substituted imprisonment terms under specific IPC sections for accused Prashanth based on Probation of Offenders Act considerations.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition partly allowed; sentence modified for accused No.1 by substituting fines for some offences and reducing imprisonment terms.

Sri. Prashanth Vs State of Karnataka — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1303 OF 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri Prashanth S/o Late Ramachandra Acharya Aged about 23 years r/at Durgaparameshwari House Near Kavadi Primary School Kavadi Post and village Brahmavara Taluk Udupi District 576 210

¶8

Sri Sharath S/o Late Ramachandra Acharya Aged about 23 years r/at Durgaparameshwari House Near Kavadi Primary School Kavadi Post and village Brahmavara Taluk Udupi District 576 210

¶9

...Petitioners

¶10

(by Sri Pavan H.K. Advocate) And:

¶11

State of Karnataka By Hebri Police Station Through the State Public Prosecutor High Court Complex Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluu – 560 001

¶12

...Respondent

¶13

(by Sri Rajat Subramanyam, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment dated 12.01.2023 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Udupi in CC No.3834 of 2020 and confirmed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Udupi dated 10.08.2023 in Crl.A.No.25 of 2023.

¶16

In this Criminal Revision Petition, arguments being heard, judgment reserved, coming on “Pronouncement of Orders” this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Revision Petition is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 12^th January, 2023 passed in Criminal Case No.3834 of 2020 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Udupi (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”), which is confirmed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udupi in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2023 vide judgment dated 10^th August 2023.

¶19

For the sake of convenience, the parties in this Revision Petition are referred to as per their rank and status before the trial Court.

¶20

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 03^rd October, 2020 at about 10.15 pm, the accused No.1 was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA.20-EU.4847 owned by accused No.2-Sri Sharath, along with CW4-Sri

¶21

¶22

Krishnappa Valmiki as a pillion rider from the side of Santekatte towards Brahmavara, in a rash and negligent manner, and when the motorcycle reached Ganesha Kalyana Mantapa at Kalathuru village, it was dashed to another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.20/EC.9303 driven by CW1-Sri Harish Naik, which was proceeding from Brahmavara towards Santekatte, resultantly both the motorcycles fell along with riders and pillion rider and CW4 and CW1 sustained fracture to their left leg; CW1 also sustained head injuries and accused No.1 also sustained grievous injuries. The accused No.2 has given his motorcycle to accused No.1 who do not possess valid driving licence, so also the motorcycle was not having emission certificate. Thus the accused committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1) read with 181, Section 5(1) read with Section 180 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act and under Rule 115 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules read with Section 190(2) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act.

¶23

After filing of charge sheet, cognizance was taken by the jurisdictional magistrate and a case was registered in CC No.3834 of 2020 and summons was issued. In response to

¶24

¶25

summons, accused 1 and 2 appeared before the Court and substance of accusation was recorded and having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶26

To prove the case, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses as PWs1 to 8 and got marked 19 documents as Exhibits P1 to P19. On closure of the prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. Having heard both the parties, the trial Court has convicted both the accused.

¶27

Accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code; He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code; further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code. Further, the accused No.1 was sentenced to pay a fine amount of

¶28

¶29

Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) read with Section 181 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act, in default o undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days.

¶30

Accused No.2 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 5(1) read with Section 180 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, in default to under simple imprisonment for a period of ten days. Accused No.2 was sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Rule 115 read with Section 190(2) of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, in default to pay the fine, shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days.

¶31

Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, accused preferred appeal before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udupi in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2023 which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 10^th August, 2023, by confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court.

¶32

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court,

¶33

¶34

which is confirmed by the appellate Court, Revision petitioners/Accused have preferred this Revision Petition.

¶35

Submission of the learned Counsel appearing for Revision Petitioners/accused:

¶36

Sri Pavan H.K., learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC is illegal, erroneous and against to the material evidence on record. He further submitted that the judgment of appellate Court is opposed to law, facts, circumstances and probabilities of the case. He submits that both the Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. It is also submitted that the evidence of PW7 is not considered by both the courts below in its right perspective. PW1 has stated that on the date of alleged accident there were no persons in and around the place of incident, but PWs2 and 3 are shown are eyewitnesses to the accident. The fact is that PWs1 to 3 are known to each other and are friends and, as such, it is doubtful as to whether PWs2 and 3 were even present at the time of accident as alleged by PW1 and the same also creates a serious doubt as to the veracity of the prosecution case.

¶37

¶38

The learned counsel further submits that PW3, who was a pillion rider along with PW2 arrayed as eye-witnesses to the incident, in his cross-examination, has clearly admitted that he has not witnessed the alleged incident and stated that when they were proceeding on that road, they have come across the incident. This admission by witness is not considered by the court below. It is further submitted that PWs2 and 3 are interested witnesses and planted only to suit the case of the prosecution. There is no cogent, corroborative and trustworthy evidence before the Courts below to prove the guilt of the accused. It is further submitted that the trial Court has imposed the fine beyond the statutory limits prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, and the same is not sustainable under law. On all these grounds the learned Counsel sought to allow the revision petition.

¶39

On the other hand, Sri. Rajat Subramanyam, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court are in accordance with law

¶40

¶41

and facts and there are no grounds to interfere with the same and accordingly, sought for dismissal of revision petition.

¶42

Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following points would arise for my consideration:

¶43

Whether the revision petitioner has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court?

¶44

Whether the Revision Petitioner has made out a ground to modify the sentence passed by the trial Court, which is confirmed by the appellate Court?

¶45

What order?

¶46

My answer to the above points is as under:

¶47

Point No.1: in the negative;

¶48

Point No.2: partly in the affirmative; Point No.3: as per final order

¶49

¶50

Regarding Point No.1:

¶51

I have carefully examined the materials placed before this Court. It is the case of the prosecution that on 03^rd October, 2020 at about 10.15 pm the accused No.1 along with one Krishnappa Valmiki as a pillion rider, rode the motorcycle from the side of Santekatte towards Brahmavara in a rash and negligent manner and when the motorcycle reached Ganesha Kalyana Mantapa at Kalthuru village, the motorcycle dashed to another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.20/EC.9303 driven by CW1-Sri Harish Naik, proceeding from Brahmavara towards Santekatte which resulted in fall of motorcycles along with its riders and pillion riders. CW4 and CW1 sustained fractured to their left leg; CW1 also sustained head injuries and accused No.1 also sustained grievous injuries. Thus the accused committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1) read with 181, Section 5(1) read with Section 180 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act and under Rule 115 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules read with Section 190(2) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act.

¶52

¶53

To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution, in all examined eight witnesses as PWs1 to 8 and marked 19 documents Exhibits P1 to P19. The accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the accident is not due to mechanical defect of motorcycles. To prove the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused No.1, the prosecution has examined PWs1 to 8.

¶54

PW1 who is the complaint as well as the eye-witness to the incident, has clearly deposed as to the case of the prosecution as stated in Exhibit P1-Complaint. Photographs are also marked as Exhibits P2 to P5.

¶55

PW2 who is said to the eye-witness to the incident, has deposed in his evidence that on the date of accident, he along with PW3 were proceeding from Brahmavara towards Hebri. PW1 was proceeding in front of his vehicle and when he reached Ganesha Kalyana Mantapa, one motorcycle along with pillion rider, ridden by its rider in a high speed, dashed to the vehicle which was proceeding on the left side of the road and as a consequence, both the riders of the motorcycles fell along with motorcycle and PW1 sustained head injury and the person who caused the accident and the pillion rider of the

¶56

¶57

said motorcycle also sustained injuries. He had further deposed that the said accident caused because of the fault of the accused No.1. He has further deposed as to the mahazar conducted by the Police and the rough sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer.

¶58

PW3 is the pillion rider who was proceeding on another motorcycle, has clearly stated as to the accident.

¶59

PW4-Pradeep, spot mahazar witness, has deposed as to the mahazar-Exhibit P6, Sketch-Exhibit P7 and Seizure mahazar.

¶60

PW7-Krishnappa, who is the pillion rider of the accused vehicle, has deposed in his evidence that the accused No.1 is his friend; about one and a half years back when he was proceeding towards from Kundapura to Shivamogga on the left side of the road at a moderate speed, one motorcycle driven by its rider in a speed, rash and negligent manner, dashed to the motorcycle, resultantly driver and himself fall on the road and PW7 lost his conscious.

¶61

At paragraphs 37 and 38 of the judgment, the trial

¶62

court has observed as under:

¶63

¶64

“ 37. On perusal of entire material placed on record, it is clear that, the prosecution has established that the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt not only by producing material documents but also examining the injured and eye-witness to the incident, who are fully supported to the case of prosecution. Further the accused has not produced any material to show that there was no rash or negligent driving on his part as stated by the learned App and also not explained anything in the 313 statement. Though the eye-witnesses and injured witness are belongs to same village, that itself is not sufficient to disbelieve that the their evidence as the accident occurred near the place of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and P.W.3 were present at the time of accident. Further the defense taken by the accused is not sufficient to disprove the case of the prosecution. Minor discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 are not fatal to the case of the prosecution, as they are clearly stated what they saw on the date of accident. The court cannot expect, witness should be deposed each and everything, as they were facing worst situation after occurrence of the accident. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that prosecution has established the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the accused No.1 which is caused Injuries.

¶65

38. Further the accused No.1 has not produced license to show that, he is holding the valid Driving license at the time of accident. Further the prosecution ably proved that, the accused No.2 who is being the owner of the Motor cycle bearing No.KA 20 EU 4847 has given his Motor Cycle who was not holding the Driving

¶66

¶67

license. The accused No.2 has also not produced Emission certificate before the court. Hence Accused No. 1 and 2 are liable for conviction. Thus the prosecution has also ably proved that the accused No.1 and 2 have committed an offence punishable U/s 279, 337, 338 of IPC and Sec. 3(1) r/w 181, Sec. 5(1) r/w 180 of IMV Act and CMV Rule 115 r/w 190(2) of IMV Act. Accordingly, I answer point no.1 to 6 in the Affirmative. ”

¶68

On re-appreciation of the evidence, the Appellate Court has held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Upon careful examination/evaluation of the evidence and appreciation made by both the Courts below, I do not find any illegality/infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, which is confirmed by the appellate Court. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative.

¶69

Regarding Point No.2:

¶70

With regard to imposition of sentence is concerned, the trial Court has convicted the accused and passed the sentence as under:

¶71

¶72

“ The accused No.1 is hereby sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of two months for the offence punishable U/s. 279 of IPC.

¶73

Further the accused No.1 is hereby sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of one month for the offence punishable U/s. 337 of IPC.

¶74

Further the accused No.1 is hereby sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of one month for the offence punishable U/s 338 of IPC.

¶75

Further the accused No.1 is hereby sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable U/s Sec.3(1) r/w Sec.181 of IMV Act. In default, the accused shall undergo S.I for a period of 10 days.

¶76

The Accused No.2 is hereby sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Sec.5(1) r/w 180 of IMV Act. In default, the accused No.2 shall undergo S.I. for a a period of 10 days.

¶77

Further the accused No.2 is hereby sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under CMV Rule 26115 r/w 190(2) of IMV Act. In default the accused No.2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for the period of 10 days.

¶78

The bail bond and surety bond of the accused stands cancelled. All the sentences shall run concurrently. ”

¶79

The alleged commission of offence under Section

¶80

279 of Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment of

¶81

¶82

either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.

¶83

The Offence under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

¶84

The Offence under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

¶85

The Offence under Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine of Rs.500/- or with both.

¶86

The Offence under Section 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with a fine of Rs.500/- or with both.

¶87

¶88

The Offence under Section 190(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the first offence, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.

¶89

At the time of accident, the age of the accused were 21 and 22 years respectively and are not convicted for any offence prior to the commission of the abovesaid offence. The trial Court, so also, the Appellate Court have not assigned any reasons for imposing sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of two months for commission of offence under Section 279 Indian Penal Code, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code; and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 338 Indian Penal Code to accused No.1-Prashanth. Both courts have not considered the provisions of Section 6 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

¶90

The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners submits that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the accused No.1 has committed the offence as alleged,

¶91

¶92

considering the age and occupation of the accused No.1, so also, considering the fact that the offence committed by the accused No.1 is the first offence, this Court can modify the sentence only to extent of imposition of fine. He also submits that the alleged commission of offences are not punishable with imprisonment for more than two years and all the offences are punishable with fine or the aforesaid sentence or both. It is not in dispute that the accused has committed the abovesaid offence is the first offence. Prior to this, the accused is not convicted for any offence. It is also not in dispute that the accused No.1 was aged 21 years at the time of commission of offence. In that view of the matter, considering the nature and gravity of offence, age and occupation of the accused and also provisions of Section 6 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, it is just and proper to modify the sentence only to the extent of imposition of fine as imposed by the trial Court. Accordingly, I answer point No.2 partly in the affirmative.

¶93

Regarding Point No.3:

¶94

For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:

¶95

¶96

O R D E R

¶97

Revision Petition is partly allowed:

¶98

The judgment of conviction dated 12^th January, 2023 passed in Criminal Case No.3834 of 2020 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Udupi which is confirmed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udupi in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2023 vide judgment dated 10^th August 2023, is modified as under:

¶99

i) Accused No.1 shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days;

¶100

ii) Accused No.1 shall pay fine of Rs.500/for offence punishable under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, shall under simple

¶101

¶102

imprisonment for a period of fifteen days;

¶103

iii) Accused No.1 shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, shall under simple imprisonment for a period of one month;

¶104

Rest of the sentence imposed by the trial Court to accused No.1 and 2 remain unaltered;

¶105

Send the copy of this Order along with trial court records, to concerned Courts.

¶106

Sd/JUDGE

¶107

lnn

Sri. Prashanth v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Prashanth 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

Sunitha and Ors. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.

Vijayashree Alias Radhika Vs M.S Aravind

Guranagouda and Anr. Vs Channappa and Ors.

Manasa Vs Monesh

Apparao Deceased by Lrs Sharanamma Vs the Special Land Acquisiton Officer and Anr.

Shivaraj Deceased by Lrs 1) Mahananda and Ors. Vs the Special Land Acquisiton Officer and Anr.