Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 62 (KAR)

Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka

2024-01-20

J.M.KHAZI

body2024
ORDER : Ms. J.M. Khazi, J. - In this petition filed under Section 397, r/w 401 Cr.P.C, petitioner who is accused before the trial Court has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of I.P.C r/w Section 134 (B), 184 and 187 of IMV Act imposed by the trial Court, which came to be confirmed by the Sessions Court by dismissing the appeal filed by him. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court. 3. The allegations against accused are that on 8.7.2011 at 8:45 a.m, at NR Circle, Hassan, accused being the driver of lorry bearing registration No.KA 13-3054 ('offending vehicle' for short), drove the same in a rash or negligent manner from N.R Circle towards Channarayapatna side and dashed against TVS XL motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13-K-6394, which was ridden by Rajannachari, thereafter dashed against motorcycle bearing registration number KA-13-V-6616 driven by Manohar @ Venu with pillion rider Jayalaxmi and thereafter against autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-13-A-7936. In the said accident, Rajannachari, Manohar @ Venu, Jayalakshmi, Ravichandra, Dushyant Kumar, sustained simple and grievous injuries. Manohar @ Venu and Rajannachari died while undergoing treatment and thereby accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of I.P.C and Sections 134(B) r/w 184 and 187 of IMV Act. 4. Accused plead not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to bring home guilt to the accused, prosecution examined in all 15 witnesses as PW-1 to 15 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 24. 6. During the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused has denied the incriminating evidence. 7. He has not led any defence evidence. 8. Vide the impugned judgment and order the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him as under: "To undergo S.I for a period of one month with fine of Rs. 600/- for the offence p/u/s 279 of I.P.C r/w Section 184 of IMV Act. In default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 5 days. To undergo S.I. for a period of one month with fine of Rs. 300/- for the offence p/u/s 337 of I.P.C. In default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 3 days. To undergo S.I. for a period of three months with fine of Rs. In default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 5 days. To undergo S.I. for a period of one month with fine of Rs. 300/- for the offence p/u/s 337 of I.P.C. In default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 3 days. To undergo S.I. for a period of three months with fine of Rs. 600/- for the offence p/u/s 338 of I.P.C. In default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 5 days. To undergo S.I. for a period of one month with fine of Rs. 300/- for the offence p/u/s 187 r/w Section 134(B) of IMV Act. In default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for three days. To undergo S.I. for a period of six months with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence p/u/s 304-A of I.P.C. In default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for one month." 9. Aggrieved by the same accused filed appeal before the Sessions Court. However, Sessions Court dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment and order of the trial Court. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused has filed this petition contending that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are totally opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case and as such liable to be set aside. The Courts below have failed to consider the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. The impugned judgment and order of the trial Court and Sessions Court are based on interested testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The omission and contradictions are also not taken into consideration by them. They have erred in not extending benefit of doubt to the accused. Viewed from any angle, the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court and Sessions court are not sustainable and pray to set aside the same. 11. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader supported the impugned judgment and order of trial Court and Sessions Court and sought for dismissal of the petition. 12. Heard elaborate arguments of both sides and perused the record. 13. Among the witnesses examined for the prosecution, PW-1, 4, 6 and 8 are the eye witnesses to the incident. 11. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader supported the impugned judgment and order of trial Court and Sessions Court and sought for dismissal of the petition. 12. Heard elaborate arguments of both sides and perused the record. 13. Among the witnesses examined for the prosecution, PW-1, 4, 6 and 8 are the eye witnesses to the incident. The evidence of PW-6 Loknath reveal that at the time of incident he was waiting for bus and saw the offending vehicle came in a high speed and first dashed against a TVS XL motorcycle, autorickshaw and one Manohar who was riding the Honda activa was also injured. PW-8 Ravichandra was the driver of the autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-13-A-7936. His evidence also revealed that a lorry dashed against his auto as a result of which he sustained injuries to his left leg and hand and left portion of his head. Though PW-6 and 8 have not identified the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle, their evidence prove the fact that accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 14. PW-4 Jayalakshmi is the injured. She is the pillion rider of Honda activa, which was being ridden by her husband Manohar. At the relevant point of time she was working at KMF cattle feed. Her husband was a contractor. Both of them were proceeding to go to their respective work. She has spoken in clear and unequivocal terms that when they were near Canara Bank Circle, offending vehicle bearing registration number KA-13-3054 came from diary circle side and first dashed against a TVS XL and thereafter against the Honda activa on which they were travelling. As a result of the accident, her husband sustained grievous injuries and she also suffered injuries. She has identified the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. PW-4 has deposed that her brother Chetan, who is examined as PW-1 came and took her and her husband to the hospital and on the same day her husband died. 15. PW-1 Chetan is the brother of PW-4 Jayalakshmi. His evidence reveal that he is a Marketing Executive and on the date of incident at 8:45 a.m, he was waiting in front of Canara Bank Circle to go to Channarayapatna. 15. PW-1 Chetan is the brother of PW-4 Jayalakshmi. His evidence reveal that he is a Marketing Executive and on the date of incident at 8:45 a.m, he was waiting in front of Canara Bank Circle to go to Channarayapatna. He has deposed that a lorry bearing registration No.KA-13-3054 coming from N.R. Circle and going towards new bus stand side, came in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against TVS XL, thereafter against the Honda Activa on which her sister and brother-in-law were travelling and thereafter it dashed against an autorickshaw. He took his sister and brother-in-law to the hospital. However, the doctors declared his brother-in-law as brought dead. 16. PW-1 has identified accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. PW-1 has been cross-examined at length suggesting that in order to go to Channarayapatna, there was no need for him to come to Canara Bank Circle and the more number of buses were available at the new bus stand. On this aspect, the witness has clarified that at the time the new bus stand was recently established and very few number of buses were stopping and therefore he came to Canara bank Circle as he would get more number of buses there. Having regard to the fact that PW-1 was working as a Marketing Executive in Shriram Fortune solutions Ltd and the nature of his work required him to work at Hassan and Channarayapatna and on the date of incident he was going to Channarayapatna, his presence at the place of incident is natural. In fact PW-4 Jayalakshmi, who is the injured and sister of PW-1 Chetan has clearly stated that it was PW-1 Chetan who took her and her husband to the hospital. 17. Thus, there is clear and unequivocal testimony of PW-1, 4, 6 and 8 that accident took place due to the rash or negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle. PW-1 and 4 have identified the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. It is suggested to the prosecution witnesses that at the circle there are traffic signal and in the traffic signal, the vehicles are required to stop and proceed. However, PW-1 has clearly deposed that as it was 8:45 a.m, the signals were not switched on. PW-1 and 4 have identified the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. It is suggested to the prosecution witnesses that at the circle there are traffic signal and in the traffic signal, the vehicles are required to stop and proceed. However, PW-1 has clearly deposed that as it was 8:45 a.m, the signals were not switched on. The incident took place at 8:45 a.m. After taking his injured sister and brother-in law to the hospital, PW-1 Chetan has lodged the complaint at 11:30 a.m at the immediate available opportunity. 18. of course there is evidence of medical officers who have treated the injured and also the testimony of Investigating Officers. Considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record the trial Court has come to a correct conclusion that the accident was caused due to the rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the accused. The Sessions Court has also on re-appreciation of the entire evidence placed on record by the prosecution has held that it is the accused who is responsible for causing the accident and the accident was due to rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The judgments and orders of the trial Court and sessions Court are based on the evidence placed on record and this Court finds no perversity calling for interference in exercise of the revisional powers under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the accused under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C is dismissed. (ii) Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 14.12.2015 in C.C.No.1152/2014 on the file of III Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC., Hassan and judgment and order dated 19.04.2021 in Crl.A.No.9/2016 on the file of III Addl.District an Sessions Judge, Hassan are confirmed. (iii) The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court and Sessions Court records along with copy of this order forthwith.