Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 219 (KAR)

Narasimha v. State of Karnataka

2011-02-24

K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

body2011
ORDER K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.—In this revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr. P.C. the petitioner who was accused in C.C. No. 2534/07 on the file of the JMFC, Mysore has questioned the legality and correctness of the concurrent judgment of the Courts below convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 304A of IPC, Sections 134 (a) and (b) read with 181 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment as also to pay fine. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused as driver of autorikshaw bearing registration No. CTO 4032 which was owned by P.W. 6-Arogya Mary drove the said autorikshaw in a rash and negligent manner at about 5.15 p.m. on 10.9.2006 on Rajendranagar Main Road in front of tailoring shop in N.R. Mohalla, Mysore and dashed against pedestrian Smt. Puttamadamma, as a result, said Puttamadamma sustained grievous injuries to which she succumbed at about 6.30 a.m. on 11.9.2006 and that the accused after causing the accident did not take the injured to hospital for treatment nor informed the police about the accident, thereby he committed the aforesaid offences. According to the case of the prosecution, P.W. 1-Lokesha son of Puttamadamma on corning to know of the accident came to the scene of occurrence, shifted his mother to the hospital and thereafter he lodged complaint about the accident as per Ex. P1 based on which, case came to be registered and investigation was taken up. During investigation, the accused was apprehended, autorikshaw in question was seized and after completing investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. P.W. 4-Ravi and P.W. 5-Gopalakrish.na are stated to the eye-witnesses to the accident. 3. The petitioner-accused pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 7. During the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused did not come out with any specific defence. It was merely suggested to material witnesses that there was no accident involving the autorikshaw in question. During his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. also, the accused merely denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution witnesses. He did not come out with any specific defence. He also did not choose to lead any defence evidence. 4. It was merely suggested to material witnesses that there was no accident involving the autorikshaw in question. During his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. also, the accused merely denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution witnesses. He did not come out with any specific defence. He also did not choose to lead any defence evidence. 4. After hearing both sides and on consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate by judgment dated 9.11.2008, held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against him and consequently he was convicted and sentenced. In the appeal filed by the accused against the judgment of the Court below in Crl. A. No. 243/08, learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore by judgment dated 9.12.2009 affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. It is against these concurrent judgments, the petitioner has presented this petition. 5. I have heard Sri P. Nataraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, High Court Government Pleader. Perused the records secured from the Courts below. 6. The fact that Puttamadamma sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred at about 5.15 p.m. on 10.9.2006 on Rajendranagar Main Road, N.R. Mohalla, Mysore, and that she succumbed to those injuries at about 6.30 a.m. on 11.9.2009 while she was taking treatment in the hospital, is not seriously disputed by the accused. The said fact has been established by the prosecution by acceptable evidence. The contents of post-mortem report Ex. P4 which are not challenged by the accused establishes the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased. Therefore, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are justified in holding that Puttamadamma died on account of accidental injuries sustained by her at about 5.15 p.m. on 10.9.2006. 7. The evidence of P.W. 6 establishes that autorikshaw bearing No. CTO 4032 is owned by her and that the accused was its driver. It is also clear from her evidence that police had seized the said autorikshaw in connection with an accident case and she later got it released to her custody by executing an indemnity bond. The accused did not choose to cross-examine P.W. 6. It is also clear from her evidence that police had seized the said autorikshaw in connection with an accident case and she later got it released to her custody by executing an indemnity bond. The accused did not choose to cross-examine P.W. 6. Thus from the evidence of P.W. 6 it is clear that the accused was the driver of the autorikshaw in question and the said autorikshaw had been seized by the police in connection with an accident case. Both the Courts below placing reliance on the testimony of P.Ws. 4 and 5 have recorded a finding that autorikshaw in question driven by the accused dashed against the deceased from behind and as a result of that she sustained injuries to which later she succumbed. Therefore, the Courts below have held that the accused was responsible for the accident and that the accident occurred on account of his rash and negligent driving of the autorikshaw. 8. I have perused the oral evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5. I find no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the Courts below with regard to the acceptability of evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5. P.W. 4 is also an autorikshaw driver. He has stated that on the date of the accident while he was proceeding in his autorikshaw he saw the deceased coming from the opposite direction by walk and the autorikshaw driven by accused hitting her from behind. Absolutely nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W. 4 to discredit his evidence. His presence at that place cannot be doubted. There were no reasons for P.W. 4 to falsely implicate the accused if really he was not the person who was driving the vehicle at that time. Except few suggestions put to P.W. 4 in the cross-examination no circumstance is brought, out to discredit his testimony. Therefore, both the Courts below are justified in accepting the evidence of P.W. 4. 9. Similarly the evidence of P.W. 5 also establishes that he saw the accident as a result of autorikshaw hitting the deceased from behind and the accused being its driver. The accused has not. disputed the fact that he was the driver of the autorikshaw in question. During his examination under Section 313 Cr. 9. Similarly the evidence of P.W. 5 also establishes that he saw the accident as a result of autorikshaw hitting the deceased from behind and the accused being its driver. The accused has not. disputed the fact that he was the driver of the autorikshaw in question. During his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the accused has not asserted that he was not the driver of the autorikshaw in question nor he has asserted that the autorikshaw driven by him did not meet with any accident. Thus the oral evidence placed by the prosecution clearly established the involvement of autorikshaw in question and the accused being its driver. Therefore, it was within the personal knowledge of the accused as to how the accident occurred. The accused did not come out with any explanation. As rightly pointed out by the Courts below it was not the case of the accused that the deceased suddenly tried to cross the road and, therefore, the accident occurred. In view of the fact, that the accused has not come out with any explanation and in the light unimpeachable evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 as to the involvement of autorikshaw driven by the accused in the accident, in my opinion, the Courts below are justified in holding that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused and as a result of his rash and negligent act the deceased sustained fatal injuries to which she succumbed. The Courts below have also noticed that the accused immediately after the accident did not inform the same to police nor made any efforts to remove the injured to the nearby hospital so that she could be given immediate medical attention. It is also noticed by the Courts below that the accused did not possess any driving licence to drive autorikshaw. Though the burden of proving that he possessed the driving licence as on the date of the accident was on the accused, he did not produce any material before the Court to show that he possessed driving licence. Therefore, both the Courts below are justified in drawing an adverse inference against the accused and in holding that the accused was driving the vehicle without a driving licence. Therefore, both the Courts below are justified in drawing an adverse inference against the accused and in holding that the accused was driving the vehicle without a driving licence. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the judgment of the Courts below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity nor the Courts below have committed any error of law or jurisdiction in holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Therefore, the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court does not call for interference by this Court. 10. In so far as the order of sentence is concerned, I find no infirmity in the said order. As a result of rash and negligent act of this petitioner, precious life of a lady is taken away. Thus the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased Puttamadamma. It is well settled law that whenever an accused person is found guilty of the offence he should be sentenced befitting the nature and gravity of the offences for which he is found guilty. The sentencing policy is to send a strong signal to the potential offenders so that such instances are not repeated. In this view of the matter, the quantum of sentence of imprisonment and fine ordered by the Court below cannot be termed either as excessive or as irrational, as such, the said order also does not call for interference. 11. In view of the above, the revision petition lacks merit and, therefore, is dismissed.