The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13545 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 442 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SRI. SHEKHARA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O BIRANNA NAIKA, R/AT GULIGURI HOUSE, KARPE VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K-574 201. (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PUTTUR TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE- 560 001. …PETITIONER Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA EARAPPA., HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 28.10.2016 MADE IN C.C.NO.867/2014 (OLD NO.1551/2011) BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND A.C.J.M., PUTTUR AND THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2017 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.5026/2016 BY THE COURT FO THE V ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., D.K., MANGALORE SITTING AT PUTTUR D.K., AND ACQUIT HIM OF THE OFFENCES WITH WHCIH HE WAS CONVICTED BY THE COURTS BELOW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13545 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.5026/2016 dated 09.03.2017 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, sitting at Puttur, D.K., (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Sessions Judge'), whereby the learned Sessions Judge
Legal Reasoning
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.867/2014 dated 28.10.2016 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Puttur (hereinafter referred to as the 'the trial Court'). 2. Abridged facts of the prosecution case are that: On 24.12.2010 at about 5:45 a.m., the revision petitioner/accused drove the Maxi Cab/Mini bus bearing Reg.No.KA-13A-811 on NH-48 from Bengaluru towards Mangaluru at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner. When the vehicle reached a place called Paalthaje Bridge, Koukrady Village, Puttur Taluk, the accused/driver lost his control over the vehicle and dashed into northern side of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13545 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2017 Bridge, as a result, the vehicle fell down to the depth of 25 feet into water canal. Due to the impact of the accident, the inmates of the vehicle i.e., Ravi and Gururaj succumbed to the injuries at the spot and PWs.2, 3, 5 to 10 sustained simple and grievous injuries. Hence, Puttur Town Traffic Police registered a case against the revision petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. After investigation, the said Police laid the charge sheet against the accused for the aforementioned offences before the trial Court. The trail Court, after securing the presence of the accused framed the charges against him for the said offences. 3. To prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution in total examined 15 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.15 and marked 27 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P27. However, the revision petitioner/accused neither examined any witness nor produced any documents. 4. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Judge convicted the revision petitioner/accused for the charges leveled against him and thereby sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13545 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2017 pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days; the accused sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days; further, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and also sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an appeal before the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore, Sitting at Puttur in Crl.A.No.5026/2016. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13545 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2017 6. The learned Sessions Judge after re-assessing the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner/accused by confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 7.
Legal Reasoning
I have heard learned counsel Sri Hareesh Bhandary T., for the revision petitioner and the learned HCGP Sri Channappa Earappa for the respondent-State. 8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused is that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a right perspective and erroneously convicted the revision petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. He further contended that, PWs.1 to 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10-the inmates of the vehicles and the eyewitnesses to the incident have categorically deposed in their evidence that the condition of the road at the place of incident was too worst and repair work was in progress on the said road. As such, there was no possibility of driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner by the revision - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13545 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2017 petitioner/accused. He further contended that, it is the specific case of the revision petitioner/accused that due to axle cut in the vehicle, the driver lost his control and the accident caused. To substantiate this aspect, on perusal of the evidence of PW.4-Motor Vehicle Inspector, he has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that if the front axle of the vehicle breaks down, the driver of the vehicle will lose his control over the vehicle and that if the accident is occurred due to dislocation of the front axle, there lies no fault on the part of the driver of the said vehicle. Further, PW.4 also admitted that, on examination of the vehicle, he found that the break system of the vehicle was not in condition. The learned counsel further contended that, PW.11 in his evidence admitted that he found rubbing marks on the road nearly for about 5 meters due to dislocation of front axle. Lastly he contended that the inmates of the vehicle/eyewitnesses-PWs.2 to 7, 9 and 10 have specifically admitted in their cross-examination that they heard the sound before the accident. Hence, it is specifically proved that, before the accident the front axle dislocated and the driver lost his control on the vehicle and the unfortunate incident caused. This - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13545 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2017 aspect of the matter is not appreciated by the Courts below. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition. 9. Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court after meticulously examining the evidence on record passed well-reasoned judgments which do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He further contended that the eyewitnesses- PWs.2 to 10 have supported the case of prosecution and stated that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and due to the same, the accident occurred. Further, Ex.P2-spot mahazar does not indicate any such rubbing marks on the road at the place of incident to substantiate the defence of the accused that the accident caused due to dislocation of the front axle. He also contended that, PW.4-Motor Vehicle Inspector has stated that, on examination of the vehicle, the accident was not caused due to the mechanical failure and the same was caused due to the negligent driving of the driver. In such circumstance, the prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the revision petitioner/accused beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court and the First Appellate - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13545 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2017 Court rightly convicted the accused for the offences he charged. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties so also on perusal of the entire evidence and materials on record, the sole point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the appeal by confirming the judgment and order of sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.867/2014?" 11. I have given my anxious consideration on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties so also perused the materials and evidence placed before me. It could be gathered from the evidence and records that PW.1 has lodged the complaint before the complainant- Police on 24.12.2010 as per Ex.P1 alleging that himself, duo deceased and other inmates were traveling in the vehicle-in- question i.e., Maxi Cab/Mini Bus bearing Registration No.KA- 13A-811 from Bengaluru to Mangaluru. When the vehicle reached a place called Paalthaje Bridge, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver i.e., the revision - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13545 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2017 petitioner/accused, the vehicle dashed to the bridge and fell down into the water canal into the depth of 25 feet. On perusal of the evidence of PW.1, he reiterated the contents of his complaint-Ex.P1 and stated that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. However, on perusal of his cross-examination he admitted that, at the place of incident the road condition was worst and a repair was in progress. This evidence of PW.1 also admitted by all the eyewitnesses i.e., PWs.2 to 10, the inmates of the vehicle. Further, PW.1 and other eyewitnesses have admitted in their evidence that they heard the sound before the occurrence of the accident. In such circumstance, it could gathered that there is no such possibility of the revision petitioner/accused driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner when the road condition was too worst and also repair work was in progress. It is the specific case of the revision petitioner/accused that the accident in question was caused due to the mechanical failure i.e., due to the dislocation of the front axle. 12. On perusal of the evidence of PW.4, though he has stated in his chief examination that, on examination of the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13545 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2017 vehicle, he found that the accident was not caused due to the mechanical failure of the vehicle, however, in his report Ex.P8, it is stated by him that the front axle of the vehicle was dislocated. Nevertheless, PW.4 in his cross-examination has specifically admitted that he was unable to state whether the front axle of the vehicle was dislocated before or after the accident. He also admitted in the evidence that, once the front axle of the vehicle was dislocated, then the driver will lose his control over the vehicle. It is his specific admission in the cross- examination that the break system of the vehicle was not in condition. On collocation of the evidence of PW.4 with the evidence of PWs.1 to 10 the inmates, as stated by them, they heard the sound in the vehicle before the accident. It could be gathered that the said sound must have caused due to dislocation of the front axle and its contact to the road. It is pertinent to peruse the evidence of PW.11-spot mahazar witness who has specifically admitted that, on the spot he had identified the rubbing marks on the road for about 5 meters. In such circumstances, the said rubbing marks must have been caused due to the dislocation of the front axle and its contact to the road. Such being the position, I am unable to accept the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13545 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2017 contention of learned HCGP that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner/accused. No doubt, due to the accident, the duo inmates succumbed to the injuries so also PWs.1 to 10 sustained simple injuries. However, the same itself is not a ground to determine that the revision petitioner/accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, along with Ex.P8-IME report, this Court is of the view that the accident in question was caused due to the dislocation of the front axle and which resulted in lost of control of the vehicle by the revision petitioner/driver. 13. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. The golden thread which runs through web of criminal justice is that, if two views are possible, the view which favours the accused should be taken into consideration. Hence, I am of the considered view that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred while appreciating the evidence on record. In that view of the matter, interference is required in the impugned judgments passed by the trial Court as well as the First - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13545 CRL.RP No. 442 of 2017 Appellate Court. Accordingly, I answer the point raised above in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. ii. The conviction and order of sentence imposed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and A.C.J.M, Puttur in C.C.No.867/2014 dated 28.10.2016, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court i.e., V Addl. District and Session Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, Sitting at Puttur, D.K., in Crl.A.No.5026/2016 dated 09.03.2017 is set-aside. iii. The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. iv. The bail bond executed by the revision petitioner/accused shall stand cancelled. v. The fine amount if any paid by the revision petitioner/accused shall be refunded to him on due identification. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24