IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI CRIMINAL RP NO. 206 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
R SHIVANNA S/O LATE RAMACHAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, DRIVER, KSRTC, MYSURU CITY, R/O HOUSE NO.373, 2ND CROSS, VIDYANAGARA, MYSURU - 570 001.
(BY SRI. UMESH P. B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVINDRA B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KRISHNARAJA TRAFFIC POLICE STAWTION, MYSURU CITY - 570 001.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001 ...PETITIONER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VINAYAKA V. S., HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 14.07.2016 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C.-III COURT, MYSURU IN C.C.NO.302/2015 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 01.12.2016 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CR.A.NO.146/2016 (CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279 AND 338 OF IPC) AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM.
THIS CRIMINAL RP IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2006, passed by the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Crl.A.No.146/2016, confirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 14.07.2016, passed by the JMFC (III Court), Mysuru in C.C.No.302/2015 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and sentencing him to pay a find of Rs.800/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month; further convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and sentencing him to pay a find of Rs.800/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, has filed this petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
That on 18.11.2014, at about 10 p.m., near Saraswathipura, K.G.Koppal Petrol Bunk and A.C.Giri signal point, CW-2 was riding a Bajaj CT-100 motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-09-ED-2892 on New Kantharaja Urs Road, the petitioner-accused being the driver of KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-09-F-4995 drove the same towards the right side of the road in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of CW-2 and caused damage to the motorcycle and also caused grievous injuries to CW-2. The accused is charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. The Trial Court, after receipt of the charge-sheet, took cognizance for the said offences. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses as PWs.1 to 7 and got marked 9 documents as per Ex.P1 to P9.
The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances against him and he has not led any evidence in support of his defense. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments, was pleased to frame three points for consideration and answered the same against the petitioner. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence of PWs.1, 4 and 5, held that the prosecution has established that the accused was involved in the alleged accident and further, PW-5 has identified the accused. On considering the evidence and materials placed on record, the Trial Court held the petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.
The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.302/2015, filed an appeal before the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru. The Appellate Court, after re-appreciation of the evidence, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 01.12.2006.
The petitioner, aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present revision petition.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay in lodging the complaint. The said aspect of delay has been explained by PW-1, complainant, stating that as on the date of the accident he could not able to lodge the first information as there was death of one of his relative on that day, and hence he could not lodge the complaint immediately.
5. The prosecution has explained the delay in lodging the complaint. But mere delay, is not fatal to the case of prosecution. On perusal of the material on record, the petitioner has not denied the alleged accident dated 18.11.2014 and alleged injuries to PW-2. PW-2 with the alleged injuries, became unconscious. The statement of PW-2 and his evidence corroborates the said fact. The complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and he is also an eyewitness who has deposed about the alleged accident between KSRTC bus and motorbike and also the injuries sustained by PW-2 who fell unconscious at the spot. PWs.4 and 5 are independent witnesses. PW-4 has deposed that on 18.11.2014, at about 10 p.m., when he was going in his car towards Srirampura, near Apollo Hospital signal, one bike was going ahead in front of his car. At the same time, one KSRTC bus came on the right side i.e., wrong side and hit the motorcycle. In the result, the rider of the said motorcycle fell down and sustained severe injuries. At that time, the driver of the bus tried to escape from the spot. Then he enquired his name and subsequently the public who were in the spot, shifted the injured to the hospital. He has also identified the accused as the driver of the alleged bus.
6. PW-5 is another independent witness. Further he has deposed about the alleged accident and that the driver of the bus was trying to flee from the spot and he has seen the driver and he identified the accused as the driver of the said bus. PW-5 is also witness to the mahazar, and has stated that on the next day police came to the spot and drew mahazar in his presence and he had signed on the mahazar as per Ex.P2.
7. On perusal of entire evidence of PWs.1 to 7, PWs.1, 4 and 5, who are independent witnesses, have consistently deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused and they have also identified the accused as the driver of the bus. The petitioner has not pointed out any enmity between him and PWs.1, 4 and 5. Further, nothing has been elicited during the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. PWs.1, 4 and 5 are strangers who will be not benefited by giving false statement against the petitioner. The said witnesses have deposed before the Trial Court regarding the alleged accident which took place in front of them.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out some discrepancy during the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses about the exact place and time of accident and colour of the bus involved in the accident. The alleged accident took place on 18.11.2014 and the witnesses were examined after lapse of more than one year. Naturally, there will be some discrepancy in their evidence. All those discrepancies elicited from the mouth of the witnesses, are minor discrepancies which will not effect the case of the prosecution.
9. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, have rightly come to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. On perusing the lower court records, I am of the considered view that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
Order The revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Judge RD