Allowed

Lakshmanappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2024CRL.RP/518/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against concurrent convictions under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC for a fatal road accident involving the petitioner's lorry. The High Court found no proof that the accused was the driver: PW.4 identified him only in the witness box and the owner's reply (Ex.P13) was unproved as its author was not examined. Conviction set aside and petitioner acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence by both courts below set aside; petitioner acquitted of Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC; bail bonds cancelled.

Lakshmanappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:6658 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 518 OF 2017

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

LAKSHMANAPPA

¶7

S/O DODDAVENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶8

Digitally signed by SUDHA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO.KA 09 7827 R/AT HULAGUMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KAIVARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALAPURA DISTRICT – 562101.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. R V ANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB-INSPECTOR SIDLAGHATTA RURAL POLICE STATION – 562105.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED ON 25.10.2013 IN C.C.NO.231/2011 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C., SHIDLAGHATTA AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.10.2015 IN CRL.A.NO.21/2014 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR.

¶17

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

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:6658 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2017

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner / accused No.1, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.10.2013 in C.C.No.231/2011 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Shidlaghatta and the judgment and order dated 31.10.2015 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chikkaballapur, in Crl.A.No.21/2014, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner / accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

¶21

The rank of the parties in the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience.

¶22

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶23

It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.02.2011

¶24

around about 11.00 p.m., PW.4 being a pillion rider was proceeding along with the deceased A.C.Manjunatha on motorcycle bearing its No.KA-03-EQ-3725 crossing the hump situated on the road, the lorry bearing its registration No.KA-

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:6658 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2017

¶26

09-7827 came with high speed and rash and negligent manner, dashed to the hind side of the motorcycle, consequently, the rider and pillion rider fell down on the road. The lorry ran over motorcycle along with the rider, consequently, the rider died at the spot and the pillion rider - PW.4 sustained injuries in the said accident.

¶27

On 10.02.2011 around about 1.00 a.m., the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the PW.4 who was admitted to the Shidlaghatta Hospital for treatment and registered a case in Crime No.28/2011 for the offences stated supra.

¶28

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses and got marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioner for the offences stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court. Hence this revision petition.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:6658 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2017

¶31

Heard Sri R.V.Anand, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶32

It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the concurrent findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction are erroneous and not proper and therefore, the conviction is required to be set aside.

¶33

It is further submitted that the evidence of PW.4 should have been considered by the Trial Court and Appellate Court properly. PW.4 in his evidence though identified the accused, in the cross-examination he admitted that he did not see the registration number of the lorry. Such being the fact, mere identifying the accused in the witness box is not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the accused was driving the vehicle. Moreover, the prosecution has not examined the owner of the lorry to prove that the accused was appointed as driver of the said lorry. Mere marking of the document as Ex.P13 which is the reply of owner of the lorry is not sufficient to take its contents as true without examining its author.

¶34

It is further submitted that both the Courts erred in

¶35

arriving at a conclusion that the accused was the driver of the

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:6658 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2017

¶38

said vehicle based on Ex.P13 only which is erroneous and not proper. Therefore, the said conviction is liable to be set aside.

¶39

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently justified the concurrent findings and submitted that the evidence of PW.4 is relevant for the reason that he was the pillion rider and also injured in the said accident and his evidence assumes greater significance.

¶40

It is further submitted that PW.4 identified the driver not only in the witness box but also in the place of accident. Ex.P12 and P13 are the documents which clearly demonstrate that the accused was driving the said vehicle as on the date of accident. Ex.P8 corroborates the evidence of PW.4. As per Ex.P8, the damage caused to the lorry itself indicates that the lorry dashed to the backside of the motorcycle and caused accident. Therefore, there is no infirmity or error in the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in recording the conviction, hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Making such submission, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:6658 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2017

¶43

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, it is appropriate to refer to the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 to ascertain as to whether any errors are committed by the Courts below in recording the conviction. No doubt, PW.1 being a witness to spot mahazar has supported the case of the prosecution. The said spot mahazar is marked as Ex.P1. Further, PW.1 in his cross-examination has stated that the contents of Ex.P2 – seizure mahazar were not read over to him and he was not aware about the seizure of the vehicles.

¶44

PW.2 also stated to be the witness to Exs.P1 and P2, not supported the case of the prosecution. However, he states in his evidence that vehicles were taken to the custody of the police.

¶45

PW.3 was working as a Motor Vehicle Inspector, said to have conducted an inspection of those vehicles and submitted his reports as per Ex.P8. According to him, the lorry which caused the accident had damages to its front side.

¶46

PW.4 being a pillion rider confirmed the accident and also stated the manner in which the accident occurred. According to him, the accused caused the accident by driving

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:6658 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2017

¶49

the said lorry at high speed. His statement said to be given at the hospital is marked as Ex.P9.

¶50

On a conjoint reading of the evidence of these

¶51

witnesses, except PW.4, none of the witnesses have stated about the driver of the vehicle. On careful reading of Ex.P9 which is said to be the statement of PW.4 does not indicate the identity of the driver, however, in his examination-in-chief, he identified the driver of the vehicle in the witness box for the first time. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he could not say the registration number of the lorry which caused the accident.

¶52

The evidence of PW.6 who was working as a Circle

¶53

Inspector indicates that a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act was issued to the owner of the lorry. The said notice is marked as Ex.P12 and her reply to the said notice is also marked as Ex.P13. As per Ex.13, the accused was driving the said vehicle, however, the prosecution did not choose to examine the owner of the vehicle to prove the contents of Ex.P13. In the absence of proof that the accused was driving

¶54

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:6658 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2017

¶55

the said vehicle as on the date of the accident, conviction, if any, cannot be sustained.

¶56

In the light of the observations made above, I

¶57

proceed to pass the following:-

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

¶60

(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.10.2013 in C.C.No.231/2011 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Shidlaghatta and judgment and order dated 31.10.2015 in Crl.A.No.21/2014 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chikkaballapur, are set aside.

¶61

(iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC.

¶62

(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

¶65

BSS

Lakshmanappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmanappa v. the 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

Sri Sharath Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Venugopal P Vs Sri Adiseshaiah

State of Karnataka Vs Kum T R Hamsa

M. Subramani Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H Ranganath Vs Sri Narayan R

Sri. Asiff Vs State of Karnataka