HANUMANTH ACHARI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri. Srinivas B. Naik and Sri. Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.570/2012, confirmed in Crl.A.No.5044/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and under Section 183 of MV Act and sentenced as under: ORDER

Acting U/S.255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby convicted for the offences p/u/ss. 279,337.338 and 304(A) of IPC and Sec. 183 of IMV Act The accused is sentenced undergo S.1. for one year for the offence p/u/s. 304(A) of IPC and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.1. for one month. The accused is sentenced to undergo S.1. for one month for the offence p/u/s. 279 of IPC and pay fine of Rs.800/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for 10 days. The accused is sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month for the offence p/u/s. 337 of IPC and pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.1. for 10 days. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6422 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2018 The accused is sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month for the offence p/u/s. 338 of IPC and pay fine of Rs.900/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.1. for 10 days. The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.100/- for the offence p/u/s. 183 of IMV Act, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for 10 days All the sentences are run concurrently.

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

3.1 In respect of a road traffic accident occurred on

07.02.2012 at 1.15 am within the limits of Ittigi Police station on Ittigi-Harapanahalli road 8NH-25) near the land of Nandi Kotrappa involving Bus bearing No.KA-17-F- 1148 and Force Toofan Classic Company Trax bearing No.KA-17/B 2366, a complaint came to be lodged. Revision petitioner is the driver of the KSRTC Bus. In the accident, Mallikarjunachari @ Mallappa. M.E.Gopalachari, Dronachari, Sreenivasa pathar, Nagarajachari and Kotresh died. CW.1 being the complainant, 4, 5 and 6 who are the inmates of the tempo trax sustained simple injuries. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6422 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2018 CWs.2,3 and 7 who are also inmates of the said tempo trax sustained grievous injuries.

3.2 Upon registering the case, Police registered the case in Crime No.5/2012 of Ittigi police station and after thorough investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.3 After securing the presence of accused, plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, 17 witnesses were examined. Among them, PW-1 to PW-7 are the injured witnesses. Wound certificates marked as Exs.P-23 and P-29 by consent. Conductor of the bus in question was examined as PW-11 who supported the case of the prosecution in part who did not specifically depose about the negligence of the accused.

3.4 One of the passengers of the bus is examined as PW-8 viz., Shashikumar s/o. Chandrappa, who has also supported the case of the prosecution to a major extent. In cross-examination he has stated that he was sitting by - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6422 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2018 the side of the window in the sixth row from the driver and has stated that there were 13 passengers in the tempo trax.

3.5 Keeping in mind the legal principles with regard the appreciation of testimony of injured eyewitnesses, Trial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced as referred supra.

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court re- appreciated the material evidence on record and dismissed the appeal of the accused.

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

Sri B. Srinivas Naik, , learned counsel for revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not taken into consideration the admissions obtained in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses inasmuch as the driver of tempo trax did not possess the valid driving licence to driver the trax and the place of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6422 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2018 accident being a curved road, it is because of the mistake of the driver of the tempo trax, accident has occurred and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition.

He would further contend that incident has taken place around 12.45 p.m. Therefore, visibility was less especially in the curved road and because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo trax, accident has occurred which fact has not been taken consideration by the learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned order and thus sought for allowing the revision petition.

He would further contend that the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court did not properly re-appreciate the material evidence on record wrongly upheld the order of conviction resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition.

Alternatively, Sri Srinivas Naik would contend that by enhancing the fine amount, imprisonment ordered by the Trial Magistrate may be set aside. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6422 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2018

Per contra, Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent supports the impugned judgments and opposes the revision grounds in toto.

He would further contend that the material on record has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate inasmuch as on the spot five persons died and two inmates of the tempo trax who were taking treatment subsequently died. In all seven valuable lives have been lost and almost all passengers in the tempo trax were injured either with simple injuries or grievous injuries which has been depicted by way of Exs.P-23 to 29 and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6422 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2018 1) Whether the accused-revision petitioner makes out a case that the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and patent factual error thus calls for interference? 2) Whether the sentence needs modification? 3) What order? Regarding Point No.1:

In the case on hand, accused being the driver of the bus is not in dispute. Conductor of the bus is examined as PW-11. He has stated about the accident and death of the driver of the tempo trax on the spot. He also supported the case of the prosecution by deposing before the Court that he took steps to shift the injured persons to hospital.

PW-8 is the one of the inmates of the bus. He has also supported the case of the prosecution to a major extent. Cross-examination of conductor and one of the inmates itself did not probablize the theory put forth on behalf of the accused. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6422 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2018

PW-1 to PW-7 being the inmates of the tempo trax and injured in the same accident have supported the case of the prosecution in toto. No doubt, few of them admitted in the cross-examination that since they were sitting in the back side of the tempo trax they were not able to see the road properly.

But in respect of the accident, accused did not place is version at the time of recording the accused statement. He did not get examine himself as a witness for defence.

In a matter of this nature, when prosecution establishes its case by placing cogent evidence, accused is bound to explain the incriminatory circumstances and also to place his version on record. If he fails to do so, consequences in law has to follow.

Admittedly, all injured persons are passengers who are strangers to the accused and they did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity against the accused to depose falsely. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6422 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2018

Therefore, the contentions urged on behalf of the accused that he has been falsely implicated for the mistake of the driver of the trax cannot be countenanced in law. Moreover, charge sheet is not challenged by the accused.

In the absence of any version placed by the accused, conviction order recorded by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference in this revision by following the principles of law enunciated in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan1. Regarding Point No.2:

In the case on hand, seven valuable lives have been lost and seven persons have been injured. Taking note of the nature of injuries mentioned in Exs.P-23 to P- 29 and death of seven persons in the incident, this Court is of the considered opinion that sentence ordered by the Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court 1 (2012) 9 SCC 284 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6422 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2018 needs no interference revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the negative. Regarding Point No.3:

In view of the findings of this Court on points No.1 and 2, as above, following order is passed.

Accordingly, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. (ii) Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court

15.05.2025. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB – Up to para 3.2 NAA- Para 3.3 to CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30