Ragavendra Krishna Naik vs The State of Karnataka

P.D. Waingankar, J.—This revision under Section 397(1) r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is preferred against order dated 13.12.2007 in C.C. No. 2/2004 on the file of the Principal JMFC, Sirsi, which has been confirmed in Crl.A. No. 252/2007 by judgment dated 23.06.2010 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Sirsi.

The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as under:

"Deceased-Shilpa along with her husband PW.1 were returning to their house on 26.12.2003 at about 8.15 p.m. after visiting Maikamba temple at Sirsi on the left side of the road. When they reached near Gopalkrishna Temple, a Maruthi Omni car bearing registration No. KA-25/M-5597 driven by the accused came in a rash and negligent manner from behind and dashed against the deceased-Shilpa causing her grievous head injuries and thereafter unable to control the speed, van went and dashed against the road side dustbin kept by municipality. A complaint came to be lodged by PW.1/husband of the deceased an eye witness to the accident, which came to be registered and the police upon completion of investigation have filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC and Section 184 r/w Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The accused appeared. He having denied the accusation, the prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.9 and marked Exs. P1 to P13. Out of the prosecution witnesses, PW.1/husband of the deceased is an eye witness apart from PWs.3 and 4. All of them have categorically deposed about the manner in which the accident occurred and they also went on record to state that it is because of the rash and negligent driving of the accused, the accident occurred. Learned Magistrate on appreciation of evidence found him guilty and thereby convicted him for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Magistrate, the accused preferred Crl.A. No. 252/2007 before the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Sirsi. Learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the Magistrate both in respect of conviction as well as sentence. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this revision petition."

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. Perused the entire records.

As I have already stated that in order to establish the charge, the prosecution examined three eye witnesses namely Nagaraj Virupakshappa Araksali (PW.1), Vasudev Rama Madigen (PW3) and Ashok Ganapati Devali (PW.4). Of course, PW.1-Nagaraj Virupakshappa Araksali is none other than the husband of the deceased who was there with his wife at the time of the accident, he has stated that while both of them were proceeding by walk on the left side of the road, Maruthi Omni driven by the accused came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his wife causing her death and thereafter Maruthi Omni went off the road and dashed the dustbin kept by the Municipality by the side of the road. The evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 is strictly in conformity with the evidence of PW.1. Both of them are independent witnesses, they have nothing to speak against the accused. Since they had actually seen the accident, they have spoken the same before the Court. The other witnesses are formal in nature. The Motor Vehicle Inspector Report (Ex. P4) reveals that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect. Ex. P8 is the post-mortem report of the deceased-Shilpa and Ex. P9 is the wound certificate of PW.1. Thus, Maruthi Omni dashed against both husband and wife, but the husband survived and wife died in the said accident. Thus, upon going through the evidence of the witnesses, more particularly the eye witness, the Magistrate has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence has also come to the same conclusion. Therefore, I do not find any reason to disagree with the conclusion reached by both the Court below, which is based on the evidence placed on record.

Coming to the sentence imposed by the Magistrate and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment is harsh having regard to the gravity of the offence and therefore, the counsel sought for reduction of the sentence of imprisonment. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed for reduction of the sentence imposed by the Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.

Accused seems to be hardly within the age of 30 years. At the time of the accident, he was aged about 24 years. Having regard to the submission made by both the learned counsel and taking into consideration the young age of the petitioner/accused, ends of justice will be met, if the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, while confirming the sentence imposed for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of IPC. Accordingly, I pass the following

"ORDER

The Revision Petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 304-A of IPC is hereby confirmed while confirming the sentence imposed for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of IPC. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC is reduced to six months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently."