Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 229 (KAR)

Maruthi v. State By Kora Police, Tumkur

2023-02-07

G BASAVARAJA

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER G Basavaraja, J. - The revision petitioner has filed this revision petition under section 397(1) of Cr.P.C to set aside the order dated 11.03.2015 passed by the Fast Track Court, Tumkur in Crl.A.No.80/2012 and judgment dated 15.03.2012 passed by II Additional Civil Judge at Tumkur in CC No.463/2010. 2. Parties are referred to as per their ranks before the trial court. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution is that: On 14.01.2010, near the house of Imam Sab, near Chikkathotlukere Ataviswamy Mutt road, the accused being the driver of tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-06-A-5329-5330 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against Gowramma, who was proceeding on the left side of the road, as a result, a wheel of tractor ran over her and caused death of Gowramma. Further it is alleged that the accused was not having any valid license at the relevant point of time and the vehicle was also not insured. Thus, accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 181 and 196 of IMV Act and Section 279 and 304A IPC. 4. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance was taken against the accused for the alleged commission of offences and case was registered in CC No.463/2010. In pursuance of summons, accused appeared before the trial court and enlarged on bail. Substance of plea was recorded by the Magistrate and accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution in all 6 witnesses are examined as P.Ws.1 to 6 and 11 documents are marked as Exs.P.1 to P.11. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence appearing against him. But he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. But he has stated that false case is foisted against him. On hearing arguments, the trial court has convicted the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of MV Act. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment passed by the II Additional Civil Judge at Tumkur, the accused has preferred an appeal before the Fast Track Court, Tumkur in Crl.A.No.80/2012 and the same came to be dismissed on 11.03.2015. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgments passed by courts below, petitioner has filed this revision petition. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment passed by the II Additional Civil Judge at Tumkur, the accused has preferred an appeal before the Fast Track Court, Tumkur in Crl.A.No.80/2012 and the same came to be dismissed on 11.03.2015. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgments passed by courts below, petitioner has filed this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted his argument that the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below are illegal, erroneous and contrary to criminal jurisprudence. Both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in a proper and perspective manner. The Courts below have mechanically held the petitioner as guilty of alleged offences by placing reliance of certain Judgments of foreign Courts, which are not applicable to the case on hand. On all these grounds, sought for allow revision petition. 7. Alternatively, learned counsel for the accused has submitted that if this Court has confirmed the Judgments passed by the trial court and as well as appellate Court. This Court may modify the sentence by imposing fine of Rs.20,000/. Further he has submitted that, at the time of commission of offence, the age of the accused was 19 years and he is the only earning member in the family. Considering the nature of gravity of offence, he sought for modification of sentence passed by the trial court. 8. As against this, learned HCGP Sri. Nageshwarappa, submitted his argument that the impugned Judgments passed by the trial Court, which is confirmed by appellate Court are in accordance with law. Both the courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in a proper and perspective manner, that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgments. On these grounds, sought for dismissal of revision petition. 9. To prove the case of prosecution, in all 6 witnesses are examined as PWs.1 to 6 and got marked 11 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.11. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused was not having valid driving license at the relevant point of time. To substantiate this, PW6-Kalleshapa-Circle Inspector, Kudligi, has clearly deposed in his evidence that he has issued notice to the owner of tractor under Section 133 of MV Act. On the same day, he has obtained reply from the owner of this vehicle. To substantiate this, PW6-Kalleshapa-Circle Inspector, Kudligi, has clearly deposed in his evidence that he has issued notice to the owner of tractor under Section 133 of MV Act. On the same day, he has obtained reply from the owner of this vehicle. He has issued notice as per Ex.P.9 and he has obtained reply from the owner of vehicle Ex.P.10 and the owner of the vehicle produced accused before him. Thereafter, he has arrested the accused and released him on bail. The accused has not challenged the evidence of P.W.6. Even the accused has not placed driving licence to show that he was having valid licence to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time. It is alleged by the prosecution that the offending vehicle was not insured at the relevant point of time. Thus, the accused has committed offence punishable under Section 196 of MV Act. The accused has not disputed this aspect and he has not produced policy of insurance to show that offending vehicle was insured at the relevant point of time. Since the accused was not having valid driving licence and also policy of Insurance at the relevant point of time, Investigating officer has submitted charge sheet against the accused for commission of offences under Sections 181 and 196 of MV Act. 10. Learned counsel for the accused has not submitted any argument in this regard. Hence, considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the considered opinion that both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record and the trial Court has convicted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 181 and 196 of MV Act. 11. With regard to rash and negligent act on the part of the accused is concerned, the prosecution has examined the complainant CW.1 as P.W.3. He has clearly deposed in his evidence that the deceased had gone to temple and while they were returning around 1.00 p.m., near the house of Imam Sab, the tractor came at high speed and dashed against Gowramma while they were proceeding on the left side of road. When Gowramma fell down, Tractor ran over her head and she was admitted to the hospital. On the way, she succumbed to the injuries and Doctor declared as brought dead. The inquest panchanama conducted as per Ex.P.2. Postmortem report Ex.P.3, IMV report Ex.P.4. When Gowramma fell down, Tractor ran over her head and she was admitted to the hospital. On the way, she succumbed to the injuries and Doctor declared as brought dead. The inquest panchanama conducted as per Ex.P.2. Postmortem report Ex.P.3, IMV report Ex.P.4. Contents of panchanama have not been disputed by the accused. Considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material placed by the prosecution, both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned judgments. Even on appreciation and re appreciation of evidence on record, I do not find any legal infirmities to interfere with the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. 12. With regard to the modification of sentence is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted his argument that at the time of accident, the age of the accused was 19 years and he is not convicted in any case prior to this accident. He is the only earning person in their family and accused is not having sufficient source of income. Considering the nature and gravity of offence and age of the accused, sought for imposing fine instead of sending the accused for imprisonment. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age and occupation of the accused and keeping in the mind the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Paul JeorgeVs NCIT Delhi 2008(2) SCC 768 and also the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Crl.R.P.No.2272/2013 dated 13.07.2022 and Crl.R.P.No.100176/2016 dated 30.11.2022 and sentence imposed by trial court for the commission of offences under Section 304A IPC, I am of the opinion that instead of sending the accused to the custody for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC as per the sentence passed by the trial court, it is just and proper to modify the sentence by imposing fine which would meet the needs of justice. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is allowed in part. The judgment passed by trial court as well as appellate court convicting the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A IPC and Section 181 and 196 of MV Act are confirmed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is allowed in part. The judgment passed by trial court as well as appellate court convicting the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A IPC and Section 181 and 196 of MV Act are confirmed. The Judgment dated 15.03.2012 passed by II Additional Civil Judge at Tumkur in CC No.463/2010 for the offence punishable under section 304-A is modified as under: 1) The petitioner/accused shall pay fine amount of Rs.30,000/- excluding the amount already deposited by the petitioner for the of offence punishable under Section 304A IPC in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. 2) The fine amount of Rs.30,000/- shall be paid to husband of the deceased Shivanna, resident of Gubbi, Chikkannanapalya, KallamballaHobli, SiraTaluk. 3) Remaining fine amount deposited by the accused shall be remitted to Government. 4) Registry is directed to send back trial court records along with the copy of this Judgment to the trial court.