Nataraj vs State of Karnataka

N. Ananda, J.—The courts below on appreciation of evidence have held petitioner guilty of offences punishable under sections 279 & 304A IPC. Therefore, petitioner is before this court. I have heard Sri B.S. Prakash, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Vijaykumar Majage, learned HCGP for State.

This court while exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 Cr.P.C., does not sit as a court of second appeal. This court can interfere with the impugned judgment if the courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioner.

It is established from evidence on record that on 04.11.2003 at about 9.30 a.m., when deceased was walking along Hosakerehalli Ring Road near junction of Hosakerehalli Ring Road and Mysore Road, petitioner had driven lorry bearing No. KA-05-AB-7677 at a high speed and negotiated lorry from Mysore Road to Hosakerehalli Ring Road, as a result lorry knocked down deceased and run over her. She succumbed to injuries at spot.

The findings recorded by courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence of eye-witnesses. The petitioner, while negotiating lorry from Mysore Road to Hosakerehalli ring road junction near Hosakerehalli ring road junction, should have reduced speed of vehicle and looked for vehicles and pedestrians moving on road. The petitioner had negotiated lorry at a high speed, unmindful of safety of pedestrians and other users of road. The place and time at which accident had taken place would clearly suggest that petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving.

The learned counsel for petitioner submits that deceased was crossing road unmindful of vehicles moving on road. Therefore, deceased is guilty of contributory negligence.

It is evident from rough sketch marked as Ex.D.1 that accident took place on the road abutting foot path. It is established from evidence on record that lorry was negotiated at a high speed. The petitioner had failed to notice deceased, who was standing by the side of ring road. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that deceased was guilty of contributory negligence cannot be accepted. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction. The trial court having sentenced petitioner for an offence punishable u/s 304A IPC should not have sentenced him for an offence punishable u/s 279 IPC. The offence u/s 304A IPC is an aggravated form of an offence u/s 279 IPC. Therefore, I pass the following:-

ORDER

The revision petition is accepted in part. The impugned judgment of conviction of petitioner for offences punishable under sections 279 & 304A IPC is confirmed. The sentence imposed by trial court and confirmed by I-appellate court for an offence punishable u/s 304A IPC is confirmed. The sentence imposed by trial court and confirmed by I-appellate court for an offence punishable u/s 279 IPC is set aside.