Chotteyandamaada Narendra vs State of Karnataka

Pradeep D. Waingankar, J.—This Criminal Revision Petition is filed U/s. 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 16.10.06 in C.C. No. 154/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and C.J.M., Madakeri and to set aside the order dated 21.5.2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 103/06 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Kodagu.

The brief facts of the case which give raise to this revision petition are as under:

On 21.8.2005 one Kottukatheera Kaverappa was driving the auto bearing No. KA-12-1042 from Makkandur village to go to Madikeri wherein his wife and mother were proceeding. At about 4.15 p.m. when the auto reached near 3rd mile of Karnangeri village, the bus bearing No. KA-12-2911 driven by the petitioner came from opposite direction i.e., Madakeri side to go towards Somwarpet side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto. As a result of the accident, the driver of the auto sustained head injury and while going for treatment to Govt. hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the complaint came to be lodged against the petitioner - driver of the bus. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statement of petitioner, inmates of auto and other witnesses and drew up spot panchanama, spot sketch and thereafter, after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. The accused appeared before the Magistrate but denied the accusation. As such in order to prove charges fort he offence U/s. 304-A and 279 of M. V. Act, the prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses - P.Ws. 1 to 8 and marked Exs P1 to P8.(a). The accused denied all the incriminating materials collected. However, he did not choose to lead his evidence. The learned Magistrate upon hearing the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and perusal of evidence placed on record, by his order dated 16.10.06 convicted the accused for offence U/s. 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner - accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 103/06. Upon merits, by order dated 21.5.2008, the appeal came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madakeri confirming the judgment and conviction passed by the Magistrate. Questioning legality and correctness of the order passed by both the Courts below, this revision petition is preferred.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner -accused and the Public Prosecutor. Perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the auto. No way the petitioner is responsible for the accident. Hence prayed to set aside the order of conviction of the accused. The Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the orders of both the Courts below.

Perusal of the evidence on record discloses that P.W.1 and P.W. 4 are eye witnesses to the incident and they are none other than the wife and mother of the driver of the auto who died in the accident. Both of them were in auto at the time of accident. Both of them have categorically stated that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus in question as bus came to the wrong side of the road and dashed against auto. P.W. 3 Thimmaiah is the inquest pancha P.W.5 - Bollappa is the father of the deceased. He is not an eye witness. P.W. 6 - Harishchandra is the P.S.I. who registered the case and conducted part of investigation. P.W. 7 -Sundarraj is the C.P.I. who has filed the charge sheet. P.W. 8 is the I.M.V. inspector who inspected both the vehicles involved in the accident and has opined that the accident was not due to mechanical defect. Apart from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 -eye witnesses, the prosecution has produced the sketch of scene of offence- Ex.P7. If we look at the sketch, it indicates that the bus came to complete wrong side of the road and dashed against auto which is going on its correct side. The prosecution has established that the accident and the resultant death of the driver of the auto was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the accused. Thus, the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge after proper appreciation of the evidence on record, has convicted the accused for the offences U/Ss. 279 and 304-A IPC. I fully agree with the order of conviction of the accused based on concurrent finding of both the Courts below. Coming to the sentence imposed, having regard to the gravity of the offence, the sentence of 6 months imposed by the Courts below is minimum sentence that could be imposed in a case of offence of this nature. The revision petition is devoid of merits and hence the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.