Basavaraju vs State

A.N. Venugopala Gowda

Petitioner faced trial for the offences punishable under Ss.279, 337, 304-A 1PC, on the allegation that, on 16.03.2006, at about 3.00 p.m., he drove the lorry bearing registration No. KA-13/A-5999 in rash and negligent manner on K.R. Nagar - Hunsur main road and near Shankaregowda Koppalu Cross dashed against a bajaj scooter and as a result, the rider of the motorcycle (PW-2) sustained Injuries and pinion rider by name Shivamma, mother-in-law of PW-2, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed al the soot. To bring home the charges, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13, through whom Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. Learned Magistrate having appreciated the evidence, held the petitioner guilty of the offences under Ss.279, 337, 304-A IPC and imposed sentence. Accused questioned the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed on him in CrI. A.No. 12/2008, in the Sessions Court at Mysore. Learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part. Offence under S.279 IPC wao held as not established and the conviction and sentence imposed thereunder was set astle. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner for the offences Linder Ss.337 and 304-A IPC was confirmed. As a result, the petitioner has stood sentenced for offence under S.337 IPC to pay fine of 2500/- ana in default, to undergo S.I. for a period of 15 days. He has been further sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 6 months and pay fine of 21, 000/- and in detbuit, to undergo S.I. for two months. Feeling aggrieved, accused has filed this criminal revision petition. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the Courts below have failed to take into consideration the discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses and the findings are perverse and illegal. Learned counsel submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate for the offence under S.279 IPC having been held as not established and having been set aside, the conviction and sentence imposed for the offences under Ss.337 and 304-A IPC is illegal. Learned counsel submitted that the evidence placed on record has not been correctly appreciated.

Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand supported the view taken by the Courts below and submitted that there being finding of fact with regard to the guilt of the accused - petitioner, no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is called for.

In view of the rival contentions and the record of the case, which I have perused, point for consideration is, whether the finding of guilt of the petitioner for the offences under Ss.337 and 304-A IPC is justified?

PW-1 is the complainant. Ex.P1 is the complaint. PW-2 was the rider of the motorcycle KA-45/E�8416. Deceased Shivamma was the pillion rider in the motorcycle which was being driven by PW-2 at the relevant point of time. PWs 3 to 8 were the riders of other motorcycles which were following the motorcycle driven by PW-2. PWs 10 and 13 are the owner and cleaner respectively of the lorry driven by the petitioner. PWs 9, 11 & 12 are the police officials and PW-12 is the I.O.

There is no dispute that the petitioner was the driver of the lorry at the time when the accident occurred. That becomes clear from the deposition of PWs 1 to 10. PW-2 being the injured has deposed that the lorry driven by the petitioner came in the opposite direction and hit the face of Shivamma who was a pillion rider in the motorcycle and as a result; she fell down, sustained grievous injuries and died. Since the lorry was not being driven in high speed, the Sessions Court has set aside the finding with regard to rashness of driving is concerned.

Death of Shivamma as a result of the grievous injuries sustained in the accident is well established from Ex.P2. Injury sustained by PW-2 is evident from Ex.P4, wound certificate.

Ex.P6 is the spot sketch which discloses that the accident spot is almost on the verge of right side of the road. The lorry ought to have remained on the left side of the road. It has gone to the wrong side and as a result, has hit the face of Smt. Shivamrna. The driver of the lorry - accused has not furnished any explanation when examined under 5.313 of Cr.P.C. Keeping in view S.106 of Evidence Act, the non furnishing of explanation by the petitioner who had knowledge as to how the accident occurred is fatz., , i to the case of the petitioner. As a result of the negligent act on the part of the petitioner, in hitting Smi:. Shivamma, while driving the lorry, Shivamma sustained grievous injuries and succumbed.

In Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, Apex Court, considering a case, where the accused was held guilty of the offence under S.304-A _PC, has observed as follows:

When automobiles have becomedeath traps any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving wouldbe at the risk of further escalation of road accidents, All those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of tiro consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic.

The negligent act of the petitioner has led to the death of Smt. Shivamma and injury to PW-2. Hence, commission of offence under S.304-A and S.337 IPC by the petitioner-accused has been established. In the circ, rmstances, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below with regard to the guilt of the accused for the offences under Ss.337 and 304-A IPC is well supported by evidence and hence, needs no interference. In view the ratio of law laid down in DALBIR SINGH case (supra), the sentence imposed on the petitioner for the offences under Ss.337 and 304-A IPC is not unreasonable. Consequently, the revision petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Bail bonds are cancelled and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Triai Court to serve the sentence.