Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 372 (KAR)

Mohammed Asgar v. State of Karnataka

2023-03-03

S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal revision petition under Sec. 397 Cr.PC is filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 20/10/2011 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-III, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.3131/2007 and the judgment and order dtd. 7/6/2014 passed by the Fast Track Court-XIII, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.758/2011. 2. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioner and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 3. The petitioner was charged before the Trial Court for the offences under Ss. 279, 337, 304-A IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24/7/2007 at about 6.45 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Malleshwaram Traffic Police Station, the petitioner who was the driver of BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-01-F-1748 drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner on the 8th Main Road at Malleshwaram from South to North and dashed against the scooter bearing registration No.KA-02-Q-1166 from its hind side and as a result, the rider of the said scooter who had sustained grievous injuries in the accident succumbed to the same and the pillion rider/PW-1 - complainant had sustained grievous injuries. 4. On the basis of the complaint lodged by PW-1, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and the police after investigation had filed charge sheet. The petitioner had claimed to be tried before the Trial Court, and therefore, the prosecution in order to prove its case had examined, in all 12 witnesses as PWs-1 to 12 and also had got marked 11 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-11. The petitioner during the course of his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.PC had denied the incriminating circumstances available against him on record. However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court, thereafter, vide its judgment and order dtd. 20/10/2011 had convicted the petitioner for the offences under Ss. 279, 337 & 304-A IPC and sentenced him to under go simple imprisonment for 30 days for the offence under Sec. 279 IPC, simple imprisonment for 30 days for the offence under Sec. 337 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.5, 000.00 for the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence in Crl.A.No.758/2011 was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 7/6/2014. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence in Crl.A.No.758/2011 was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 7/6/2014. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition. 5. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material available on record. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the petitioner had examined 12 witnesses as PWs-1 to 12. PW-1 is the injured eye-witness/complainant who was the pillion along with the deceased in scooter bearing registration No.KA-02-Q1166. He has clearly stated that the bus which was driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed against the hind portion of the scooter and had caused the accident and resultantly, the rider as well as the pillion rider had fallen on the road and had suffered grievous injuries. He has also stated that the rider of the scooter viz., Ravi who was his friend had succumbed to the injuries that was caused in the accident. He has identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. 7. PWs-2 to 5 are the other independent eye-witnesses to the accident in question. All these witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and they have consistently deposed that the bus which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver had dashed against the scooter from its hind portion in which PW-1 and deceased Ravi were riding and had caused the accident. All these witnesses have also identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Their evidence corroborates with the evidence of PW-1. 8. PW-10 is an official of the petitioner's employer - BMTC and this witness has stated before the Trial Court that the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. PW-3 who is an eye-witness to the accident is also a pancha to the spot mahazar - Ex.P-2. During the course of cross-examination of these witnesses, nothing has been elicited from them by the defence so as to disbelieve their version. 9. PW-9 - Motor Vehicles Inspector has identified the report at Ex.P-5 and has stated that the offending vehicle did not suffer any mechanical defect at the time of accident. During the course of cross-examination of these witnesses, nothing has been elicited from them by the defence so as to disbelieve their version. 9. PW-9 - Motor Vehicles Inspector has identified the report at Ex.P-5 and has stated that the offending vehicle did not suffer any mechanical defect at the time of accident. PW-11 - Investigation Officer has stated about the filing of the criminal case against the petitioner and also about the investigation conducted by him and thereafter, filing of charge sheet. Even during the course of their cross-examination, nothing is elicited by the defence so as to disbelieve the evidence of PWs-1 to 5 & 10. PW-7 is the doctor who has conducted the postmortem of deceased Ravi and PW-8 is the doctor who has treated the injured complainant - PW-1. 10. The prosecution has proved that the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident and PWs-1 to 5 have deposed before the Trial Court to the effect that the petitioner was driving the offending bus in a rash and negligent manner and had dashed against the scooter from hind side. Their evidence would also go to show that the bus was on the left side of the scooter and the right front side of the bus had dashed against the hind portion of the scooter and due to the said impact, the rider and pillion rider had fallen down and both had sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, the rider had succumbed to the injuries. 11. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, have recorded a concurrent finding of guilt against the petitioner and held him guilty of the alleged offences. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are well reasoned and sound and they do not call for any interference. Even the sentence imposed by the courts below for the offences for which the petitioner has been convicted is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, I see no ground to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below. Therefore, the revision petition stands dismissed.