Dismissed

Ashoka v. State by

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2024CRL.RP/815/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC for a rash and negligent driving accident causing death of a passenger. The High Court found cogent evidence including injured eyewitnesses and post mortem showing death from cervical spine injury, upheld conviction and six-month sentence, dismissing the revision.

What did the court decide?

Time till 10.07.2024 granted to surrender before trial court to serve sentence; no other relief.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22137 CRL.RP No. 815 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.815 OF 2021 (397)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ASHOKA S/O.BASAVANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS DRIVER R/AT HURALIKOPPA VILLAGE SORABA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 429

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI UMESH MULIMANI FOR SRI S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE BY SORABA POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶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 30.01.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT SAGAR IN CRL.A.NO.10021/2019 MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 29.03.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA IN C.C. NO.136/2017 AND ETC.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:22137 CRL.RP No. 815 of 2021

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard Sri Umesh Mulimani, learned counsel for revision petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

¶21

The accused, who suffered an order of conviction and sentence in CC.No.136/2017, which was modified in Crl.A.No.10021/2019, has preferred this revision petition.

¶22

The facts in brief utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

¶23

A complaint came to be lodged by one Lakshman on 11.08.2016 at Soraba Police Station seeking action against the accused by contending that on 11.08.2016 at about 7.30 a.m. between Moodi Doddikoppa - Huralikoppa Village, on tar road, in front of the land of Shivalingappa, the complainant and others were proceeding in a passenger auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA 15/9538 as labourers. The driver of auto rickshaw (accused) drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, he lost control and the auto rickshaw fell into a ditch. Due to the impact of the accident, all the

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:22137 CRL.RP No. 815 of 2021

¶25

passengers suffered injuries and one among them namely, Hanumanthappa suffered grievous injuries and he was shifted to Hospital for higher medical care. Subsequently, he was discharged from the Hospital. Despite the same, because of the accidental injuries, he was not cured completely, ultimately, he has lost his life.

¶26

3.1 The opinion of the Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination for cause of death is due to the shock, as a result of the injuries to the cervical spinal cord and the brain. Therefore, the said Lakshman sought for action against the accused. The Police registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC and also under the provisions of Sections 3 and 181 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and conducted a detailed investigation by filing charge sheet.

¶27

3.2 The presence of the accused was secured and charges were framed.

¶28

3.3 The accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the trial was held.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:22137 CRL.RP No. 815 of 2021

¶31

3.4 In order to establish the case of the prosecution, in all 18 witnesses were got examined. Among them, PWs.1 to 9 are the injured eye witnesses, who have also travelled in the very same auto rickshaw. The prosecution also placed on record 29 documents comprising of complaint, Post Mortem report, wound certificate of the injured witnesses, further statements, FIR, additional complaint and requisition etc.

¶32

3.5 The statement of the accused as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.PC. was recorded.

¶33

3.6 On conclusion of recording of the prosecution witnesses, the accused has denied all the incriminating circumstances including the accident.

¶34

3.7 Thereafter, the trial Judge hearing arguments of the parties, convicted the accused as aforesaid.

¶35

3.8 Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.10021/2019.

¶36

3.9 Learned Judge in the first Appellate Court, after securing the records, modified the conviction and sentence as referred supra .

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:22137 CRL.RP No. 815 of 2021

¶39

3.10 Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court in this revision petition.

¶40

Sri Umesh Mulimani, learned counsel for revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the case of the prosecution and wrongly recorded the order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and sought for allowing of the revision petition.

¶41

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

¶42

supports the impugned judgment.

¶43

Having heard the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, the accident in question has been properly established by the prosecution by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record including the testimony of the injured eye witnesses. Admittedly, the accused-revision petitioner did not possess any Driving Licence to drive the auto rickshaw.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:22137 CRL.RP No. 815 of 2021

¶46

The owner of the auto rickshaw has been examined as a prosecution witness and he has admitted that the Police has seized the auto rickshaw on account of the accident and he has got released by executing an indemnity bond. This witness is not cross-examined by the accused. The fact remains that as on the date of occurrence of the accident, it was the accused, who was driving the auto rickshaw without Driving Licence and because of his negligence, the auto fell into a ditch and all the inmates of the auto rickshaw, who were 10 in numbers sustained injuries and one among them i.e. Hanumanthappa got severe injury to cervical spine and ultimately, lost his life, as per the Post Mortem report.

¶47

Taking note of all these aspects of the matter and also in the absence of any contra evidence placed on record, learned trial Judge convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences.

¶48

Being not satisfied with the order of the learned trial Judge, the accused preferred an appeal before the District Court and the learned Judge in the first Appellate Court considering the material on record, modified the order of conviction and sentence as well.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:22137 CRL.RP No. 815 of 2021

¶51

In fact, the State should have filed the revision petition against the order of the learned Judge of the first Appellate Court, as there are enough material which would not only attract the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, but also under Section 338 of IPC.

¶52

Be that as it may, since the State has not chosen to file any revision, this Court perused the material on record in the light of the argument that is put-forth on behalf of the revision petitioner. On such perusal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the injured eye witness had supported the case of the prosecution and the Post Mortem report clearly shows that the death of Hanumanthappa is on account of injury to cervical spine, which has been sustained by him in the road traffic accident because of the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Therefore, hardly, there is no scope for interference of order of conviction.

¶53

With regard to the sentence, since the trial Judge has imposed only six months imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, this Court does not find it excessive in view of the principles of law enunciated by the

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:22137 CRL.RP No. 815 of 2021

¶56

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015)5 SCC 182.

¶57

Therefore, viewed from any angle, the revision petition lacks merits and accordingly, the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i) The revision petition is dismissed;

¶60

ii) Time is granted till 10.07.2024 for the revision petitioner to surrender before the trial Court for serving the sentence.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Ashoka v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashoka 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 Maruthi Fabtech Vs Sri Shamlal Vishandas

Sri Muddukrishna T L Vs the State of Karnataka

Kaluram Choudhary Vs Sri. Vishwanath

State by Jayapura Police Vs Dhanjaya M S

Prashanth @ Prashanth Kumara @ Vasanth Kumar B P Vs State of Karnataka

Mahaboob Vs Ravikumar