The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5854 CRL.RP No. 541 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.541 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. AKBAR ALI, S/O ABDUL KHADAR SAB, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADINA CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 130. (BY SRI. V.R. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAJASHEKAR B.G., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. THE STATE BY TOWN POLICE STATION,
Facts
GAURIBIDNUR, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT
Legal Reasoning
Having perused the material available on record, the complainant P.W.1 is not an eye-witness to the accident. P.W.2 is an eye-witness, who is also the sister of the deceased and though she is a child witness, she categorically states that when she was proceeding on the very same road, her brother was ahead of her at the time of accident and lorry came from behind and dashed against him and lorry did not stop at the spot and moved for some distance and thereafter stopped the vehicle. When people raised hue and cry, he ran away towards the railway track fearing the public. She identified the driver and categorically says that while running away she had seen him - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5854 CRL.RP No. 541 of 2016 and also seen him in the police station when he was arrested. No doubt, it is elicited that place of accident was a busy place where people will be moving. It is also elicited from her that she witnessed the accident from a distance of 20 to 25 feet and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2. 7. It is important to note that P.W.3 and P.W.5 are the panch witnesses. P.W.4 is the IMV Inspector and he categorically says that there was no any mechanical defect and no damage to the lorry. The Court also cannot expect any damage to the lorry when the lorry went and dashed against a person. P.W.7 is the owner of the lorry and he stated that the accused was working with him as a driver of the lorry and he got released the vehicle in question. He says that he took him to get the vehicle released and admits that he was his driver. 8. Having taken note of the material on record and the evidence of P.W.8 Investigating Officer and P.W.9 who conducted the further investigation, no explanation was given by the accused in his 313 statement and only total denial. Having considered the evidence on record, no doubt in the revision petition need not look into the evidence. However, if any perversity is found in the finding of the Trial Court and the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5854 CRL.RP No. 541 of 2016 Appellate Court, the Court has to make cursory look to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Having re-assessed the material and also the evidence and particularly taking note of Ex.P.8 sketch, the driver of the lorry went from backside and dashed against the deceased, who was on the left side of the road and the same was witnessed by P.W.2. Though she is the sister of the deceased and minor aged about 15 years, she gave the answer and withstood the cross-examination and denied the suggestion of the defence that he only fell down on account of skid and nothing is elicited. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, no perversity is found in the findings of both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. Having considered the conviction and sentence also when the offence is invoked under Section 304A of IPC, no need to convict and sentence for the offence under Section 279 of IPC. But the Trial Court convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and the same requires to be set aside, since the ingredients of Section 279 of IPC merges with the severe offence of Section 304A of IPC. Having considered the factual aspects and material on record, the sentence imposed by the Trial Court commensurate with the offence and only imprisonment of six months is imposed and hence it does not - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5854 CRL.RP No. 541 of 2016 require interference of this Court. Hence, I answer the point for consideration partly in the affirmative. Point (ii): 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
Arguments
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT THE ORDER OF IN CONVICTION C.C.NO.722/2012 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDNAUR DATED 08.11.2013 AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER BY THE LEARNED PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKABALLAPURA IN CRL.A.NO.118/2013 DATED 26.02.2016 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. PASSED BY THE COURTS NAMELY - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5854 CRL.RP No. 541 of 2016 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State . 2. This criminal revision petition is filed against the conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, wherein punishment of six months and fine of Rs.2,000/- was imposed in respect of Section 304A of IPC and only fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed in respect of Section 279 of IPC and default sentence of one month was imposed for both the offences and the same is confirmed by the Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on record. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence of witnesses have not been corroborated and the evidence of C.W.2 is contrary to the document of Ex.P.2. It is also contended that both the Courts - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5854 CRL.RP No. 541 of 2016 have committed an error in accepting the case of the prosecution mainly relying upon the evidence P.W.2 and there are contradictions and the Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that contradictions are bound to occur when examining the witnesses after a long time. The very approach of both the Courts are erroneous. 4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State would contend that the evidence of P.W.2 is very clear that she witnessed the accident. Nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.2, who is none other than the sister of the deceased. She identified the accused since she had witnessed the accused when he ran away towards the railway line after stopping the vehicle and after the accident. She categorically says that when he was arrested also she identified him in the police station. It is suggested that the deceased fell down on account of skid of cycle and not on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry and the same was denied specifically. The Trial Court also taken note of the document of Ex.P.8 sketch as well as Ex.P.3 motor vehicle accident report and also the IMV Inspector was also examined and documentary evidence supports the case of the prosecution. Hence, it does not require interference of this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5854 CRL.RP No. 541 of 2016 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State and also on perusal of the material on record, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether both the Courts have committed an error in convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner and whether it requires interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction? (ii) What order? Point (i): 6.
Decision
ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) The conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC is set aside. (iii) The conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC is confirmed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71