IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT QHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23*" DAY OF JULY, 2oos>;*f..j;.'__'__:
BEFORE
THE HO%\|'BLE MR.JusT1cEf;jAwA'D R)'-\._HI'i¥"-'i-- .1: '-
CREMINAL PETITION NO.E2%6:2{2OO6.:V."_iAE'" * it 1.
BETWEEN:
'BA NGAL'»o=R E";
LVENKATARAMANA, V Z
s/o. SUBS/--\NNA SE"'£""TY .|-i~.._ ;
AGED 40 YEARS,
LORRY DRIVER, V A
R/o. sATHvAvAAi1Ai'A(3AR:.' _ _ - *
BELLARY. =i A ' *7=-___,.-...PETETIOi\éER
(By Sré . it
AND:
sTATE TH ROUGH. THE» sT.AT1=oi\:,
HOUSE OFEICER, * _
:<uRuGoDu POLICE STATION',
KURUGODU, REPRE'S'ENT'ED BY SPP,
HI(3H:'«:CO_L§F'iT, " A
'RE'€PQ§\iD'EN'T,_
"(av-sir; 'T3_ii.;'_e.ot~i_%.h'i'hd:, HCG P)
E This Ctiminal Revision Petition is fééed under Section397
r_/wt 401.. of Cr.P.C. by the Advocate for the petitioner praying
~[_*tt3at'~..this Hon'b§e Court may be pleased to set aside the
'ijvddgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.no.167/99
dated 10'10.2003 on the file of the Pré. Civéé Judge { Sr. Dn.) 8:
""CJM, Beéiary and set aside the gudgment of conviction and
sentence passed in Cri.A.No.61/2003 dated 1.12.2006 on the
W
fiie of the PO. FTC-I hoiding concurrent charge of P.O. FTC--1E,
Beiiarv.
This petition coming on for admission, this
made the foiiowing:
ORDER
Convictedwaccused is in revision ;a~ga7inst.juidgnnie-n.t .3
Cri.A.No.61/2003 dated 1.12.’2i3{)_6 0i;i”€.h”e nie:di’TrTadi__C_,H 3*
2:7. ‘The. VVpet4i.tiovn:_’3’i’i-sitpending for admission from
2606’ after 3n’oti’ce to the ‘State.
4._ .”3h:7.ifii:e petition is admitted and taken up for final
‘~..,disposai’oy consent.
5. The petitioner was tried and found guiityifor
“the offences indicated above on the accusation that on
8.10.98 at 8.30 a.m., whiie driving iorry NO. KA–34/4901
aw
from Kampli to Kurugodu, crossed a bridge, which was
sub–merged in water near Naarihaila near Shantinagar»._4″A_Vs
the bridge was not worthy of use and was
water, the vehicle capsized in thehalla;””‘7tijere~;wereg:”‘
several passengers travelling in the c;3irer.ier”iporti’on”o:f.__th.ei.’
lorry and some were sitting iriflthe caoi-n and eveflryb_Vody:’§feVlli
into the flowing water and of twlovfears, daughter
of Eshwaramma __due touasphyxia
as a result of drowning:,.~~–v:’_if: A i if V
6. was lodged at the
iurisdictiofnaifip.olice’}V”sta’tio.:n’ be,/A'”_’l3W.’3–Viz’upal<amined_ theV"._evidenc.e~liinf 'P\}"i}i.S'~
complainant as also the injuredVi'i'passengers"_oi*V'the':§vehicle.
Their evidence was ioiiim c.orro'phbr._a~tiiiv-ep from" the other
investigating materiai, Tigria'i'~~CoLUftaccepted. The
accused was %_t"her_e'fore"-.;oinv'icte'd._Va~nd…,s~entenced, against
which he wassvin'Crl;A;'i'io'.'6.1;'2'0O3 reiterating the plea of
innocence';p__ * Appellate Eudge even on
real'@?i'éiS~aE of"'~f.act and evidence found no merit and
.rej«ected theappeai and against the concurrent findings, he
is iAn..grev'is?o»n.",."s
Learned counsel for the petitioner would
that both the judgments impugned are
unsustainable as there is no proper appreciation of
evidence on record. In this regard, his rnain contention is
as
that the prosecution had not established that petitioner
was the driver of the vehicle in question and the l,orrv"ii_n
question was involved in the incident. To gain..S'Ll'pi3,G'F.t'V';{lQ
the contentions, he submits that_ffW.1
different registration number of the is/eh7icie.,..'biit4'l'a'ter«~eit.'
was changed. in the evidence,'«–h_Ve says only falling
into the halla, without specific'a'l'§v_ aVl_Vleg"ing._ith:e rash and
negligent act of the and 6 the
alleged victims have convincingly
driver of the
vehicle___a_nd' negligence, the accident
has contention is that there is no
incriminlating rash and negligent driving.
Hegyvlould sub'm.i_tVthat since rash and negligent driving is
.A notlljprovedrt-he question of convicting him for the offence
iinder IPC does not arise. He has referred
toxthe"-.':oivd'er passed by the Trial Court whereby the
'acctiseyd is convicted only for the offence under section
338 and 304–A of IPC and not for the offence under
it "Section 279 of IPC. §~§e_siibmits that since the accused has
not been convicted for the offence under Section 279 IPC,
NV
6
his conviction for the offence under Section 304-A of 19C is
iilegal. Aiternativeiy, he submits that the pUni_’S1.’]V_i’i’!.u€”l1.t
imposed is very harsh.
8. Per contra, Sri P.i~i.Gc§ti~;h’ihdi._,
supports the impugned jud>grhent4’~._ah–d.
through the evidence on record’;’aj’i.
9. Keeping in””-ri*ii.nd.g ‘;2_vija4tfjis”~urged, I have
examined the iower Court” record ‘V’irr”‘s”upport of the
arguments of» the if; . it
1VO’f”‘1tfi»::a_sv to “hate that right from the
beginning the alleged the petitioner was
the driver the Ag_ood”s vehicle bearing registration
“At””r’:’o”poirtt of time, the accused disputed
driver of the vehicle. PW.5 is the
co’mupiainant’3–.V_oh whose report the investigation was taken
Hup. Though the accused had fuii opportunity to question
V”ix_t’h,e_’ajiegations made in the complaint about the petitioner
being driver of the vehicle, has not even suggested that
a'<'"~'/
11. The second aspect is about the ras.hVVi»-and
negligence of the driver. The accused has not _
situs of the accident or the time of the GCCLJ.;).r-EF’.’:{E::eV’J: u
and evidence of prosecution witnes7ses:1’sh.ow’=that”theVii-o_rr~agii
with severai passengers wasi’driv_Ven by, the ac’cus:e.d_anl:l it
crossed a lake, which was over’fflow_i_ng”_”~ read was
submerged. There VVva&\\’l/#0″ p_ro;:N:/r As expected,
when the vehicles’-evnteriedthe it capsized
resulting in:.:F’o’rtunately, most of
the but resulted in death
of a two accused has not explained
under “lithe drove the vehicle with
passengers onialvroacl, which was submerged by over»
.flow_ing_l’ o.f–_w–aVter. It is a clear case of the petitioner
Hc.o’n-tVr’ave’ri_i_vn_g’the provision of Section 184 of motor vehicle
Act?’ wh:ich”rnandates that who so ever drives a vehicle
dangerously, having regard to the nature, is liable to be
ZpVu’n’ished with imprisonment. Therefore, the evidence
it “given by the prosecution witnesses cleariy indicts the
accused for the rash and negligent driving and
W
9
consequently for the offence under Section 304»~A. The
contention of the learned counsel for the petition.er*~t_ha_t
the Trial Court has not found him guilty for the _
rash and negligent driving has to bVeAgVreject,eu’*t{efcaus:e«.the:u
Trial Court has in para~14 of theju_dg;nent1’has4″c’i:e.at~i:>;fu.’
discussed the evidence Whi-‘”.:h’«–._¢StaVE)’1-l._S’i;iE!S and
negiigent act of the accusedkin,Vdriv’i’ng:i’theVf; vehicle
dahgerousiy endangeriVngRhuAn’i_a n;_ li.fe~–a’nld”property.
12. No. ‘dQE§l’bt, [the’_Tria.lVA”‘coiirt ‘while passing the
order convicted him for the
offenceviiuindet}SeActi”onT”‘2VV79 of_”I’PC perhaps because the
accused’-was Vconvic_tedv«_als.o:’for the offence under Section
3O4–VA_of There’-._are”biVtwo views on this aspect. If a
‘JV’i–…perso’n:,.;’rhas2beenwtharged for the offence of rash and
_n’egl’i’gent.ldrivirig and also for the offence under Section
3′(J.é__ii¥%/ix the punishment for the offence under
‘*..,Sectiorfi”304–A is of higher degree. Therefore there is
“ii:”_mer’g.er and hence it is held that the sentence imposed for
S the offence under Section 30-4~A suffice for the guilt of the
accused established under Section 279 of IPC. That is
(31%/_
actually an accrual benefit to the accused, which is now
tried to be used, to nullify the effect of conviction under
Section 304-A of IPC, such a view is wholly untena_4b.ler-and
rejected in toto.
13. In the resultant positio’n,Hther_e’–,is.;no'”rrierit:?ini.”;
the petition, the petition is rejected_
judgments are confirmed.
14. However, V”ta:l’;ing,_ consideration all
attending circumstancegin..i.il:»hi’C3″!,”¥he”‘petiti’o’ner is placed,
the order re.g_a§-rdiniggfn se.nten’ce is_,to– ‘reviewed. The Trial
Court hassentencejdvtil-nveracctised to undergo SI. for 6
months and to p’ay””.,3 Rs.2SOO/– for the offence
und,e§’Selction of IPC and 2 months ‘5.1. and fine of
offence under Section 337 of IPC and 3
i’m.o’iitVlisvV’S,;r,..__a’n,’£i”..a fine of Rs.1000/– for the offence under
V . Section of IPC.
As seen from the reasoning of the Trial Court,
it ?is a well–reasoned order, but considering the time factor
which is consumed in the prosecution of the accused, the
33,,
sentence of 6 months’ S.I. for the offence punishabie
under Section 304–A of EPC is reduced to three months”;’S..I.
and the sentence of imprisonment for the offe~nce«’V~:i_’ritie_r’
Section 337 {PC is reduced to 15 days
Likewise, for the offence under E§ect:i_onj;338″‘of._h:
sentence to undergo S.I. fo:”.4_3 mo’n_th’–s is sVreiduvce’d ijo”1
month. The order regardinc_f’~ifi’ne_ is V”n1.a:i”ntvain’eEd, The
accused is entitied to’se’t:off.’_$for,th~e_pie-riod ofidetention if
any he has undergone d.uri’n~g
y’ .
16. 5The,acciose«ci–.,.__si’i.aVlI’?sti_rre_nder before the Trial
Court:to%”Ljnd:e»irgo’é:t§i1e :s’en’tence”‘w§thin a period of 15 days
from now .
Sd/–
JUDGE