P Kushalappagowda vs State of Karnataka

V. Jagannathan

Heard the learned counsel Sri. Rajakumar for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader Sri. Satish R. Girji for the respondent State in respect of the challenge to the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the petitioner and the said judgment being confirmed by the lower appellate court. Thus, concurrent findings are at the back of this petition.

The case of the prosecution in short is that, on 10.1.2007 at about 10.15 p.m., in front of Parijatha Tiles on West of Chord Road, the petitioner drove the tipper lorry baring Reg. No. KA 02 D 2311 in a rash and negligent manner and clashed to Kinetic Honda which was driven by the deceased.

In respect of the aforesaid accident, following the complaint lodged by PW-1, a case was registered and ultimately charge sheet was submitted in respect of Sections 279, 304(A) and 134(a & b) r/w 187 of the IMV Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and the prosecution led the evidence by examining PWs 1 to 9 and produced 10 documents. The accused statement was followed by the arguments being heard as no evidence was placed on behalf of the accused petitioner.

Learned trial judge, after evidence appreciation, held that the prosecution had brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable u/s 279, 304(A) and 134(a & b) r/w 187 of the M.V. Act. The petitioner was sentenced to pay Rs. 1,000/- fine for the offence punishable u/s 279 of the IPC and in default, to undergo 30 days simple imprisonment, for the offence u/s 304(A) of the IPC he was sentenced to six months S.I. with Rs. 5.000/- fine and for the offence under the M.V. Act. Rs. 500/- was imposed as fine and in default, to undergo S.I. for 15 days. The said judgment of conviction and sentence was questioned before the appellate court by the petitioner and the learned Judge of the lower appellate court had no difficulty in confirming the trial court''s verdict in all respects.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the State and perused the records of this case.

The only ground urged by the petitioner''s counsel is that, insofar as the death of Shaji Jeorge is concerned, the evidence is not very clear because the post mortem report mentions trial the death was on account of the blunt injury caused to the heart and no witness has spoken to the blunt injury to the heart. Secondly, it is argued that the injuries mentioned in the inquest report, differs from the one sustained by the petitioner and therefore it is doubtful as to whether the cause of death could have been due to the injuries sustained in the accident in question. On this ground, learned counsel sought for the judgments of the courts below being set aside.

On the other hand, submission of the learned Government Pleader for the State is that, both the courts below have considered the evidence in proper perspective and the post mortem report in particular has clearly mentioned that the cause of death was on account of shock and hemorrhage as a result of blunt injury caused to the heart in a road traffic accident. Submission made by the leaned Government Pleader-is that, the death occurred the very day following the date of the accident. Therefore, no interference is called for against the current findings of the courts below.

Having thus heard both sides and insofar as cause of death is concerned, the post mortem report which was marked as Ex.P3 clearly mentions that the death was on account of shock and hemorrhage as a result of blunt injury to the heart caused in a road traffic accident. It is therefore clear that the cause of death was on account of the injury sustained as above and the injury was caused in a road traffic accident. The post mortem report also mentions that the information was furnished by the police to the effect that on 10.1.2007 at about 10.15 p.m. the deceased while proceeding in his Kinetic Honda was hit. by a tipper lorry from behind and he fell from his vehicle and sustained injuries and he was taken to Chaya Nursing Home and then to M.S. Ramaiah hospital and he died in the latter hospital at 2.15 a.m. on 11.1.2007.

As far as the inquest report is concerned. I have also perused the said document Ex.P7 and the injuries mentioned though are numbering six, in the post mortem report itself it is mentioned that the victim suffered multiple abrasions of various sizes, therefore the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report corresponds to the injuries mentioned in the inquest report.

Thus, the evidence on the while does not give rise to take any view other than the one taken by the courts below. No error is pointed out in the judgments of the courts below for this court to interfere in the revision.

As far as the sentence is concerned, the trial court has convicted the petitioner to six months imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in respect of the offence u/s 304(A) of IPC and in respect of other offences fine amount has been imposed with default sentences. Therefore, the sentence awarded also does not require any interference.

The petition lacks merit, and is dismissed.