The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3138 CRL.RP No. 1372 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1372 OF 2015 BETWEEN: B.Y.NAGARAJU S/O ELLASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT THONDAVADI VILLAGE, GUNDLUPETE TALUK - 571123 CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTR (BY SRI HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BEGURU POLICE STATION GUNDLUPETE TQ - 571123 (BY SRI M DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 02.12.2014 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUNDLUPETE IN C.C.NO.326/2010 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3138 CRL.RP No. 1372 of 2015 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. This petition is filed against the conviction order dated 02.12.2014 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of CPC and acquitted for the other offences
Facts
passed in c.c.No.326/2010 by the trial court and the said order is confirmed by the first appellate court in Crl.A.No.15/2014. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and confirmation, the present revision petition is filed. 3. The counsel for the petitioner mainly contend that both the courts have completely erred in believing the evidence of complainant and discarded the case of the petitioner. The counsel also would vehemently contend that during the course of arguments, the trial court and the first appellate court relied upon the evidence of PW1 and PW1’s evidence is clear that he was not an eye witness and he came to know about the accident only after hearing screaming sound and hence, he cannot be termed as eye-witness and he did not see the vehicle and accident was also occurred on the edge of the road and also bike was lying on the edge of the tar road in a mud area - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3138 CRL.RP No. 1372 of 2015 hence, relying upon the evidence of PW1 as an eye-witness cannot be accepted. The counsel contend that PW2 is the son of victim and he is not an eye-witness and he is hearsay witness. PW3 is the mahazar witness and other witnesses are the investigating officers. Both the courts failed to appreciate the answer elicited from the mouth of PW1. The counsel also contends that incident was taken place in the year 2010 and sentence imposed is also exorbitant and not commensurate with the gravity of the offence and incident was taken place in the night and hence, this court has to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State would vehemently contend that even though eye-witness is only PW1, his evidence is credible since he was along with the deceased at the time of accident and he only shifted the injured to the hospital and hence, his evidence cannot be disbelieved and both the courts rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and the court has to take note of quality of the evidence available on record and not the number of witnesses. No doubt, other witnesses are not eye-witnesses and they are mahazar witness; son of the victim and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3138 CRL.RP No. 1372 of 2015 investigating officers. The counsel contends that the court has to take note of Ex.P6 - Sketch which is clear that accident was occurred on the edge of the road and same is also spoken by PW1, hence, his evidence cannot be discarded. 5.
Legal Reasoning
order. Having considered the scope and ambit of the revision is concerned, no doubt, the witness -PW1 is the only eye-witness - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3138 CRL.RP No. 1372 of 2015 to the incident, he categorically deposed with regard to the fact that when the incident occurred, he was on the left side of the road. No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to notice of this Court answer elicited from him that he immediately noticed the screaming sound of the victim, took the injured to the hospital. It is also important to note that in his chief evidence, he categorically deposes after alighting from the bus, they were moving towards the Village and at that time, motorcyclist came and hit him along with the deceased. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, no doubt as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he says that on hearing screaming sound, he immediately came to know about the incident and he was on the left side of the road and he did not notice any other vehicle and he did not overturn. But, he categorically says that accident occurred on the left side of the road and Ex.P6 clearly depicts the place of the accident. Apart from that, he also categorically states that motor cycle lying on the left side of the road i.e., in the mud road which is beside the tar road. When such answer is given, the Court also cannot expect mathematical niceties, when the incident was witnessed by the eye witness and the fact that he shifted the injured to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3138 CRL.RP No. 1372 of 2015 the hospital is not in dispute. When such being the case, the very contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that his evidence cannot be believed cannot be accepted since he was on his left side. 7. Apart from that when the other witnesses are not eye witnesses, the Court has to take note of quality of evidence available on record and not the number of evidence and the injured was admitted to the hospital immediately after the accident and thereafter he succumbed to the injuries, even though he was shifted to Higher Centre on the same day. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. However, taking note of the offences which have been invoked, the offence under Section 279 merges with Section 304(A) IPC, since the accident converts with death of a victim and the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused under Section 279 IPC and also imposing punishment for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC. Having taken note of the material on record, the incident has taken place in 2010 and the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for a period of one year and the same has to be reduced to six months as held in catena of judgments - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3138 CRL.RP No. 1372 of 2015 and minimum sentence must be six months for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC and the same is reduced taking note of the fact that incident took place almost 1½ decade. 8. Hence, having taken note of the material on record, when the incident has taken place 14½ years back, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence from one year to six months for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC. Therefore, it requires interference of this Court in part exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, I answer point No.(1) in ‘partly affirmative’. Point No.2 9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:
Arguments
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, the point that would raised for consideration of this court that: 1. Whether both the courts have committed an error in convicting and sentencing and confirming the same and whether it requires interference of this court? 2. What order? Point No.1 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the scope of revision is very limited and the court has to take note of legality and correctness of the
Decision
ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned order convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 279 IPC is set aside and the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3138 CRL.RP No. 1372 of 2015 IPC is upheld and confirmed. However the sentence is reduced to six months from one year without altering the fine amount. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN/ST