Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 541 (KAR)

D. Manjunathappa v. State Of Karnataka

2020-02-25

K.NATARAJAN

body2020
JUDGMENT K. Natarajan, J. - This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/accused assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 4.11.2010 passed by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Sira (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court) in CC No. 994/2009 and the same was upheld by the FTC-III Tumkur, (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Court) in Crl.A. No. 121/2010 vide order dated 02.08.2011. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader. 3. The status of the parties before the Trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the prosecution is that the Sub-Inspector of P.N. Halli Police filed charge sheet against the accused under Section 279, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) alleging that on 01.09.2009, the accused being the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Regn. No. KA-06-F-0369 has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the S.R.E. bus bearing No. KA-16-A-5803, which was parked near the road, due to which, PW.2 who was traveling in the KSRTC bus sustained injures. Thereafter, the PW.2 took treatment and filed complaint through her son PW.1. After registering the case, the police investigated the case and filed charge sheet. After appearance of the accused before the Trial Court, the accused was released on bail. Charges were framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the prosecution in order to prove its case, in all, examined 12 witnesses and got marked 8 documents. After closing of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The case of the accused was one of total denial, but not entered any defence. The Trial Court after hearing, found the accused guilty, convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 of IPC; Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 38 with default sentence. Assailing the same, the accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court, which came to be dismissed. Hence, the accused is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contended that the judgment of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are not sustainable in law. 1000/- for the offence under Section 38 with default sentence. Assailing the same, the accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court, which came to be dismissed. Hence, the accused is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contended that the judgment of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are not sustainable in law. There is inordinate delay of 86 days in lodging the complaint, which was not at all satisfactorily explained by the complainant or the prosecution before the Trial Court. Even otherwise, the wound certificate does not reveal that the injuries sustained by PW.2 are grievous in nature. The doctor was also not examined. The conductor of the KSRTC bus has not been examined and cited as witness. The driver and conductor of S.R.E bus were also not examined by the Investigating Officer. There are contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, who are of the same family. There is no independent eyewitness examined by the Investigating officer for proving the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the judgment passed by the Trial Court suffers from illegality. Hence, he prayed for allowing the revision petition. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supported the judgment of the Courts below and contended that the accident was admitted by the accused in the cross-examination. The wound certificate was marked with the consent of learned counsel for the accused. The only defence taken by the accused is that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the S.R.E. bus driver and as there was no insurance policy to the S.R.E. bus, they have falsely implicated the KSRTC bus driver. Except the said suggestion, nothing has been elicited and produced before the Court. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly given the finding against the accused and held the accused guilty. There is nothing to interfere with the reasoned judgment of the Courts below. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 7. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: 'Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below calls for interference?' 8. It is not in dispute that the accident has occurred on 01.09.2009 and the complaint came to be filed by PW.1, the son of PW.2, the injured on 08.09.2009. It is not in dispute that the accident has occurred on 01.09.2009 and the complaint came to be filed by PW.1, the son of PW.2, the injured on 08.09.2009. There was delay of 8 days in lodging the complaint. Ex.P.8-wound certificate goes to show that on the date of the accident itself, the injured was shifted to the government hospital at Sira. There is reference available in the wound certificate that the injured person sustained injuries due to the road traffic accident at 11.15 a.m. due to collision of two buses. However, though the doctor was not examined and the wound certificate marked with consent shows injury No. 2 as grievous in nature without any basis. There is no x-ray film or x-ray report to support Ex.P.8 in order to prove that injury No. 2 is grievous in nature. However, Ex.P.8 is marked with the consent. Admitted facts need not be proved. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused before the Trial Court was that in the cross-examination, PWs.1 to 3 have not stated anything. The evidence of PW.1 show that PW.2 was admitted in the hospital at Sira for four days. Thereafter, for another four days she was admitted in Tumkur hospital. PW.2 has not stated that she has taken treatment in the Tumkur hospital, but her evidence shows that she took treatment in the Sira hospital. Though there is correction in the date of the complaint at Ex.P.1 as 7 to 8, but the same was not the date of the accident. As per the report of the motor vehicle inspectors-PWs.7 and 8, the accident has occurred not due to any mechanical defect. The two motor vehicle inspectors inspected both the vehicles. Though some defects were found on both the buses, the fact remains that the driver of the S.R.E. bus not lodged any complaint and the Investigating officers also not chosen to examine the driver and the conductor of the S.R.E. bus and even the conductor of the KSRTC bus was also not examined by the Investigating Officer. But that itself is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Even if the conductor of the bus is examined, the prosecution cannot expect any support from the driver of the offending bus. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 cannot be discarded merely they are interested witnesses. But that itself is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Even if the conductor of the bus is examined, the prosecution cannot expect any support from the driver of the offending bus. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 cannot be discarded merely they are interested witnesses. There is no ground for lodging a false complaint. Such being the case, the question of lodging complaint against the S.R.E. bus does not arise. The accused though cross-examined PWs.1 to 3, but not explained in 313 statements as to what precautionary measures were taken by him in order to avoid the accident. Mere denial in the cross-examination cannot disprove the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Considering the evidence on record, the Courts below appreciated and re-appreciated the evidence on record and rightly held the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him. Such being the case, there is no illegality or error committed by the Courts below which calls for interference. Therefore, the order under revision does not suffer from any legality. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed Accordingly, the Criminal Revision petition is dismissed.