Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 946 (KAR)

Ramakrishna v. State of Karnataka

2023-08-01

RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This revision petition is filed by the accused under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.1055/2009 on the file I Additional JMFC, Chitradurga and confirmed in Criminal appeal No.60/2013 by the Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga vide judgment dtd. 30/10/2013. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to their ranking occupied by them before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to the case are that: The accused was driver of bus bearing registration No.KA- 16/D-3595. On 5/1/2009, he drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed the same to road side tamarind tree near Madakaripura valley resulting in death of Annapurnamma and Ashok Shetty who were the inmates of the bus and simple as well as grievous injuries to the other passengers traveling in the bus. 4. On the basis of the complaint, the investigating officer has investigated the crime and submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. 5. After submission of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and summons has been issued to the accused. The accused has appeared and was enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers were also furnished to him. The plea for the offence under Ss. 279 and 304A of IPC is framed against him and the same is read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 16 witnesses and also placed reliance on 32 documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P32. 7. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case of prosecution and the case of accused is total denial. He did not choose to lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of his case. 8. He did not choose to lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of his case. 8. After having heard the arguments and perusing the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC by imposing simple imprisonment for period of one year with fine of Rs.5, 000.00 with default clause for the offence punishable under Sec. 304A IPC only. 9. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has approached the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Crl.A.No.60/2013. Learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court vide order dtd. 31/10/2013. 10. Being aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the accused is before this Court by way of revision. 11. Initially, the revision petitioner was represented by counsel. Since the counsel did not appear before the Court, amicus curiae is appointed vide order dtd. 5/6/2023. 12. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned amicus curiae and the learned HCGP appearing for State. 13. Learned amicus curiae would submit that the evidence on record does not inspire the confidence of Court regarding rash and negligent driving on the part of the revision petitioner and he further asserts that the sentence of one year is too harsh. Hence, he would seek for remission of sentence in case of conviction needs to be confirmed. 14. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that due to actionable negligence on the part of the accused, two persons suffered fatal injuries which has resulted in their death and number of persons suffered simple as well as grievous injuries. He also invited attention of this Court with regard to sketch of scene of occurrence and also further asserts that the identity of the accused is undisputed so as to set up defence regarding he driving the vehicle at the time of accident. He would further submit that both the Courts below have appreciated the facts and circumstances in proper manner and have rightly convicted the accused by imposing reasonable sentence which does not call for interference. 15. He would further submit that both the Courts below have appreciated the facts and circumstances in proper manner and have rightly convicted the accused by imposing reasonable sentence which does not call for interference. 15. Having heard the arguments and after perusal of both oral and documentary evidence, the following point would arise for my consideration: "Whether judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court is erroneous, arbitrary and illegal so as to call for any interference by this Court". 16. It is an admitted fact that the accused was the driver of offending bus bearing registration No.KA-16/D-3595. It is further admitted fact that the said vehicle met with an accident on 5/1/2009 at Chitradurga Challakere Road near Madakaripura valley, Hampaiahnamalige gate, when it hit the road side tree, resulting in two deaths and injuries to number of passengers traveling in the bus. Identity of the accused being the driver of the offending bus is also not challenged. The evidence recorded on behalf of the prosecution clearly establish that the witness have specifically asserted the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the offending bus. Some of the witness though have turned hostile regarding identity of the accused but they were not cross examined by the defence counsel regarding rash and negligent act. 17. The accused even during recording of statement under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., has not explained as to how the accident has occurred and what precautions he has taken to avoid the accident. During the course of argument, it is submitted that the road was having number of path holes and while negotiating the path holes, the accident has occurred but the said arguments cannot be accepted as no such defence was put forth during the course of trial. 18. Under Sec. 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proving the fact within the knowledge of accused is on him. Admittedly accused is best witness in given circumstance. 19. It is evident that the accused did not dispute the sketch of scene of occurrence marked at Ex.P32. From Ex.P32, it is evident that at the accident spot, road is running from west to east. The bus is also moving from west to east. Admittedly accused is best witness in given circumstance. 19. It is evident that the accused did not dispute the sketch of scene of occurrence marked at Ex.P32. From Ex.P32, it is evident that at the accident spot, road is running from west to east. The bus is also moving from west to east. The width of road is 24 kms and 6 feet kaccha road is situated on the either of the road. The bus moved on the northern side i.e. on left side and hit the road side tree and the sketch itself establish that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by its driver and principles of 'Res-ipsa loquitur' directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. It is the duty of the accused to explain as to how and under what circumstances the accident has occurred but there is no explanation. Admittedly the accident is not due to mechanical defect of the offending bus. Hence, the evidence on record clearly establish that the accident in question is due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus. Both the Courts below have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in detail and have rightly convicted the accused. No illegality or infirmity is found in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 20. It is now submitted that the sentence of one year is too harsh. At the same time, it is also relevant to note that for the offence punishable under Ss. 337 and 338 of Cr.P.C., no sentence was passed. The State has not challenged the said finding. The offence under Sec. 304A of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years with fine. The Trial Court has imposed punishment of one year with fine of Rs.5, 000.00 which appears to be reasonable considering the fact that two persons have succumbed to injuries and number of persons have suffered simple as well as grievous injuries in the said accident. No grounds are forthcoming for remission of sentence imposed by the Trial Court. 21. Under these circumstances, the point under consideration is answered in negative. The revision petition being devoid of merits does not survive for consideration. 22. No grounds are forthcoming for remission of sentence imposed by the Trial Court. 21. Under these circumstances, the point under consideration is answered in negative. The revision petition being devoid of merits does not survive for consideration. 22. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal Revision stands dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. ii. Send the records to the Trial Court with a copy of this judgment to secure the presence of accused for serving the sentence. iii. The fees of amicus curiae is fixed at Rs.5, 000.00.