Mohan Reddy vs State of Karnataka

A.N. Venugopala Gowda

The petitioner was the accused in C.C. No. 3988/2009 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court III, Bangalore. The allegation against him was that, on 10.5.2007, at about 6.40 a.m., near Hebbal bus stop, Bellary road, being the driver of Tempo bearing registration No. KA-03-5763, drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, dashed to a pedestrian/D. Hanumantharayappa and due to impact, D. Hanumantharayappa sustained grievous injury and succumbed on the way to hospital and thereby, he committed offences punishable under Ss. 279 and 304A IPC. The prosecution in order to substantiate the allegations examined 7 witnesses/PWs. 1 to 7 and marked 11 documents as Exs. P1 to P11. The accused, in his statement under S. 313 Cr.P.C., denied the incriminating material brought against him. No defence evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate found the accused guilty. The accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 279 and 304A of IPC. Learned Magistrate imposed the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under S. 279 IPC and undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days. The accused was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under S. 304-A IPC.

Accused filed Crl. A. No. 374/2010 in the Sessions Court, Bangalore assailing the said the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence. After analyzing the evidence, the Appellate Court came to hold that, it is the appellant - accused who was a driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident and that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt, that due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, the accident was caused by the accused and Hanumanthrayappa died, as a result of grievous injury sustained in the accident. The appeal was dismissed and thereby the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence was upheld. Questioning the said Judgments and the Orders, the accused has filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

Sri N. Sathyanarayan, learned advocate, contended that, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, the Courts below are not justified in finding the petitioner guilty of the offences for which he was charged. He submitted that there is no credible evidence to show that there was rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and that the accused was driving the vehicle involved in the accident. Reliance was placed on the decision reported in Tukaram Sitaram Gore Vs. State, . Alternatively, he contended that, the sentence of imprisonment ordered for the offences is harsh and interference in the matter is warranted.

Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned HCGP, on the other hand, contended that, the analysis of evidence made by the learned Magistrate and the learned Appellate Judge cannot be stated to be perverse. There being concurrent finding by the fact finding Courts, no interference with the finding of fact in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction is warranted. He submitted that the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner being cause for the accident, has led to the death of Hanumantharayappa and hence, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused-petitioner is justified. Learned counsel made submissions in support of the findings recorded by the Courts below in the impugned Judgments.

In view of the rival contentions, the point for consideration is:

Whether the impugned Judgments and orders are perverse or illegal and warrant any interference?

It is trite that, a person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result and that it may not be always possible to determine with reference to the speed of a vehicle, whether a person was driving rashly and negligently. Even when one is driving a vehicle at a slow speed, but, recklessly and negligently, it would amount to rash and negligent driving within the meaning of the language of S. 279 IPC. The decision reported in Tukaram Sitaram Gore Vs. State, has no application to the instant case.

PW-3/Rajanna, a Police Constable of R.T. Nagar Police Station, lodged the complaint/Ex. P5. He has testified that, on 10.5.2007, he was deputed at Hebbal Bridge from 6.00 a.m., to 2.00 p.m., and while he was working near the bridge, at about 6.40 a.m., one pedestrian was crossing the road from west to east and at that time, one Tempo bearing registration No. KA-05-5763 came from North to South in high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the pedestrian, who sustained injury on his head and that, after the accident, the driver of the vehicle stopped the vehicle little ahead of the accident spot and after gathering of the public, he ran away from the spot. He has testified that, he shifted the injured with the help of the public to Baptist Hospital and while he was shifted to the hospital, the injured pedestrian succumbed. He has said that, later he came to know the name of the deceased.

PW-6/P. Rajanna, Head Constable of R.T. Nagar Traffic Police Station has testified that, he was posted to work at Hebbal bus stand on 10.5.2007 and he was in the spot at 6.10 a.m., and at about 6.45 a.m., one pedestrian was crossing from west to east and at that time, a Tempo came in high speed from Yelahanka towards City, struck the pedestrian, who sustained injury on head and legs and became unconscious. He has said that the accused was the Tempo driver at that time and that CW-1 shifted the victim to the Baptist Hospital and that the victim succumbed to the injuries. He enquired the name of the accused, who disclosed his name and after the public gathered, the driver ran away from the spot. He stated the Tempo registration number as KA-03-5763. According to him, the incident occurred due to the negligence of the Tempo driver.

PW-2/Deshpande was an Inspector in the R.T.O. office, Yeshwanthpur. He has said that, on 11.5.2007, on the requisition of the Police Inspector of R.T. Nagar Traffic Police Station, he inspected the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-05-5763 and issued the report/Ex. P4. He has observed the damage on bonnet on the right side above the light. Having tested the vehicle, he found that brake system was in order and opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle.

PW-1 Dr. Amudam, Surgeon in Baptist Hospital, has said that, on 10.5.2007, one person was brought dead to the causality by Hebbal Police. The victim suffered accident at Bellary Road, while crossing the road. Thereafter, he sent intimation to the concerned Police Station.

PW-4/Dr. S. Harish, HOD and Professor of Forensic medicine, M.S. Ramaiah Hospital has testified that, on 10.5.2007, at the request of the Police Inspector of R.T. Nagar Traffic Police Station, he conducted the Postmortem examination on the dead body of D. Hanumantharayappa, as per Ex. P7 and found external and internal injuries on the dead body. All the injuries were antimortem and fresh in nature. He has opined that the death is due to head injury sustained and the injury may be result of a Road Traffic Accident.

PW-5/Ranganathaiah, PSI of Traffic Police Station has testified that, on 10.5.2007, he was on duty and CW 1 (PW-3) gave the complaint/Ex. P5. After registering the complaint in Crime No. 92/2007, he sent the FIR to the Court and went to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital and conducted the inquest as per Ex. P1.

PW-7/P. Vijayakumar, Police Inspector of R.T. Nagar Police Station has testified that, on 10.5.2007, he took over further investigation from PSI Ranganathaiah, verified the papers and sent requisition for inspection of the vehicle involved in the accident. He has said that, accused voluntarily surrendered before the Police Station and he issued notice under S. 133 of MV Act and received the answer from the accused and arrested the accused and sent him to the Court. He has said that, he received the P.M. report of the deceased. After completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. He has identified the accused, present before the Court.

Ex. P5 is the complaint. Ex. P8 is the FIR. Ex. P9 is the rough sketch. Ex. P6 is the spot mahazar. Ex. P10 is the notice issued under S. 133 of IMV Act and the Ex. P11 is the reply of the owner of the vehicle/accused. Ex. P4 is the IMV report. Ex. P3 is the death intimation. Ex. P1 is the inquest mahazar and Ex. P7 is the P.M. report of the deceased Hanumantharayappa.

Sri. N. Sathyanarayan contended that, there are contradictions in the statements of PWs. 3 and 6 and that the petitioner was not driving the vehicle involved in the accident and as such, he is entitled to be acquitted.

There is no merit in contention. The vehicle in question was seized by the police in Crime No. 92/2007. At the time of seizure of the vehicle, the police took the original R.C. book and other documents from the custody of the accused. The accused filed an application under Ss. 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., on 15.5.2007, to order the release of the vehicle along with the R.C. book in his favour. The application was allowed and the police were directed to release the property seized in P.F. No. 2/2007 dated 11.5.2007. The accused executed the Indemnity bond and took interim custody of the vehicle. The Tempo is certainly involved in the accident, as otherwise, the vehicle would not have been seized and there would not any occasion for the accused producing the documents of the vehicle before the Police and the seizure of the vehicle in P.F. No. 2/2007 and the release of the vehicle by the Court, as noticed supra. In the reply/Ex. P11, the accused has furnished the details of the vehicle, date and time of occurrence, place of occurrence, name and address of the driver, i.e., self and the vehicle having been registered in his name. There is no challenge to Ex. P11. There is direct evidence showing that it is the accused who was driving the Tempo involved in the accident.

The Courts below have concurrently found that, on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tempo by the accused the accident in question occurred and that D. Hanumantharayappa sustained grievous injury and succumbed. The finding of guilt recorded by the Courts below having credible evidentiary support, being neither perverse nor illegal, no interference is warranted in the revision jurisdiction as there is no jurisdictional error committed by the Court below. The sentence imposed on the petitioner is neither irrational nor harsh. However, it is clarified that the sentences shall run concurrently.

In the result, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Bail bond and surety bond are cancelled. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Trial Court and serve the sentence.