Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 26 (KAR)

Devadas Suvarna S/o Late Narayanappa v. State

2025-05-02

S.RACHAIAH

body2025
ORDER : S RACHAIAH, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 28.04.2017 in C.C.No.238/2015 on the file of the JMFC (III Court), Mangaluru, D.K. and its confirmation judgment and order dated 07.11.2017 in Crl.A.No.83/2017 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 2. The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience. Factual matrix of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.09.2014 at about 6.05 p.m., the accused being the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-19-D-5293, drove the same from Mangalore towards Surthkal on NH-66 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the hind side of the car bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-0425. Due to the said impact, the car driven by C.W.6 was dashed to the hind side of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-19-C-8783 which was driven by C.W.2. Due to the said accident, C.W.6 sustained simple injuries and one Smt. Sumithra Prabhu who was inmate of the car had sustained grievous injuries and other two inmates of the car i.e., C.Ws.4 and 5 were sustained simple injuries. The injured were shifted to Ullal General Hospital. Later, the injured Sumitra Prabhu was shifted to Dr. N.R.Acharya Memorial General Hospital, Kundapur, however, she succumbed to the injuries at the hospital on 23.09.2014. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered against the accused. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.47/14 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC and Sections 3(1) read with 181 and 185 of IMV Act. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 12 witnesses as PWs.1 to 12 and got marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to P20. The Trial Court recorded the conviction for the above said offenses. In an appeal, the Appellate Court partly allowed the judgment of the Trial Court and set aside the sentence in respect of section 304(A) of IPC. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this revision petition. 5. Heard Sri. Sandesh Shetty T., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 6. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this revision petition. 5. Heard Sri. Sandesh Shetty T., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the concurrent findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction against the accused are perverse, illegal and contrary to the evidence on record and also opposed to the facts and law. 7. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would indicate that there was no negligence on the part of the vehicle of the accused. However, the evidence of C.Ws.4 to 5, even they have supported the case of the prosecution being inmates of the vehicle which was driven by C.W.6, the fact remains that, they are interested witnesses and close relative of the deceased. Unless, the prosecution proves that the petitioner was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, conviction in respect of aforesaid offences cannot be sustained. However, the Courts below have committed grave error in recording the conviction. Therefore, the impugned judgments are required to be set aside. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the revision petition. 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State vehemently justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below and he further submitted that the concurrent findings of the Courts below are proper and appropriate. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are the conductor and driver of the private bus have deposed that the Eeco Car bearing Reg.No.KA20-C-0425 dashed to their bus, however, they did not support the case of the prosecution. The fact remains that the evidence of P.Ws. 4 to 6 who are the inmates of the said Eeco car stated that the Tata Indica Car bearing Reg.No.KA-19-D-5293 of which the petitioner was driving in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the said Eeco car which was driven by C.W.6. Consequently, the said car dashed to the hind side of the bus. The evidence of P.Ws.4 to 6 are reliable and trustworthy and even believable. Nothing has been elicited in the crossexamination to discredit their evidence. Consequently, the said car dashed to the hind side of the bus. The evidence of P.Ws.4 to 6 are reliable and trustworthy and even believable. Nothing has been elicited in the crossexamination to discredit their evidence. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 7 would indicate that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner after having consumed alcohol and dashed to the Eeco car which was going ahead and behind the bus in the middle of the Tata Indica car and also bus. 9. It is further submitted that as the evidence of these witnesses are consistent in respect of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and also the petitioner consumed alcohol as on the date of accident, it can be inferred that the petitioner had committed accident under the influence of alcohol. As such, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the revision petition. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, it is relevant to have a cursory look upon the evidence of all these witnesses for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the Courts below have arrived at proper conclusion or not in recording the conviction. 11. P.W.1 being a conductor of the Aashel bus bearing Reg.No.KA-19-C-8783 deposed that around 6.00 pm when the bus was being moved from State Bank towards Kutthethur, a Eeco car dashed to the hind side of the bus. It is a serial accident. The aged woman who was the inmate of the car stated to have sustained injuries. He affixed his signature on Exs.P.1 and P2. P.W.1 has been treated as hostile witness to the case of the prosecution and he was cross-examined by the public prosecutor, nothing has been elicited to show that the petitioner had consumed alcohol while driving the said vehicle. 12. P.W.2 being a bus driver has deposed in his evidence that the accident had occurred as on the said date around 6.00 pm. However, he did not say as to how the accident occurred and by whose negligence, the accident was occurred. He has also been treated as hostile and cross examined by the public prosecutor, however, nothing has been elicited to support the case of the prosecution. 13. However, he did not say as to how the accident occurred and by whose negligence, the accident was occurred. He has also been treated as hostile and cross examined by the public prosecutor, however, nothing has been elicited to support the case of the prosecution. 13. P.W.3 is witness to the Ex.P.2-spot mahazar. He deposed that he had affixed his signature near Kodikal cross. 14. P.W.4 in his evidence deposed that C.W.5 is her husband. The deceased Sumithra was her mother. They had come to attend funeral ceremony of her relative on 14.09.2014 and when they were returning from Mangalore to Kundapur, the said Tata Indica Car dashed their car from hind side at Kodikal Cross, in turn, their car dashed to the bus which was going in front of their car. Due to the said impact, herself and her husband have sustained simple injuries, whereas, her mother sustained grievous injuries and later, she died. Further, she stated the name of the driver of car which caused accident as Devadasa Suvarna. She identified the said driver. 15. P.W.5 being a husband of the C.W.4 has supported the case of the prosecution stating that the petitioner was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner after having consumed the alcohol. Consequently, the petitioner dashed to his car, due to the said impact, his car dashed to the hind side of the bus. Therefore, himself, his wife, and his mother-in-law sustained injuries. However, his mother-in-law succumbed to the injuries at the hospital. He also withstood the cross-examination and supported the case of the prosecution. 16. P.W.6 stated to be the owner of the Eeco Car bearing Reg.No.KA-20-C0425 deposed that he was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident. He further deposed that, P.W.5 had hired his car on account of attending funeral ceremony of his relative. He deposed in consonance with that of other two witnesses viz., P.Ws.4 and 5. 17. P.W.10 who was working as PSI of traffic, North Police Station had deposed in his evidence that after the accident, the driver of the Tata Indica Car came to the Kadri police station. When the driver was examined through machine to detect as to whether he consumed alcohol or not, the machine reveals that the driver had consumed alcohol. There he had submitted the report to that extent. When the driver was examined through machine to detect as to whether he consumed alcohol or not, the machine reveals that the driver had consumed alcohol. There he had submitted the report to that extent. Thereafter, he is stated to have conducted part of the investigation. 18. P.W.11 being a police inspector received the case file from C.W.20 for further investigation and conducted part of the investigation. 19. P.W. 12 being a police inspector, after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet. 20. After analyzing the evidence of all the witnesses stated supra, it can be inferred that the petitioner was driving the said vehicle under the influence of alcohol in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle of which P.W.6 was driving to its hind side. In turn, P.W.6 dashed hind side of the bus of which P.W.2 was driving. Consequently, the inmates of the car of which P.W.6 was driving have sustained injuries and one of the inmates succumbed to the injuries. All the witnesses are consistent that the petitioner was driving the vehicle, they identified him. Further, they stated that, the petitioner had consumed alcohol and also it is stated that the petitioner was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 21. Be that as it may, the act of driving the vehicle by consuming the alcohol, though appears to be an offence under the IMV Act, the fact remains that, that itself would go to show that, the petitioner was negligent in his driving and dashed to the hind side of the car. Having considered the rash and negligent act of the petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that, the findings of the Courts below in rendering the conviction are proper and appropriate. Nothing is there to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.