S.M. Manjunath vs State of Karnataka

A.N. Venugopala Gowda

The petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 279 and 304-A IPC and Ss. 181, 187 and 196 of IMV Act 1988. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 800/- for the offence under S. 279 IPC and one year Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under S. 304-A IPC and Rs. 500/- for the offence under S. 181, Rs. 500/- for the offence under S. 187 and Rs. 500/- for the offence under S. 196 of IMV Act 1988. Default stipulations were provided in respect of the fines imposed. Criminal Appeal filed was dismissed by the learned Session Judge. Challenging the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, noticed supra, the accused has filed this Criminal Revision Petition. The factual matrix in nutshell is as follows:

That on 2.1.2006, the accused-petitioner being the driver of Auto rickshaw KA-09-5785 while was proceeding from Sargur bus stand to Urdu School, drove the same in rash and negligent manner and at I Main Road, Chikkadevamma circle junction, dashed against a cyclist one Kumar, due to which he fell down and the vehicle toppled and 3 passengers in the autorickshaw/PWs.3 to 5 sustained injuries and that said Kumar succumbed to the injuries at B.G.S Apollo Hospital, Mysore on 13.1.2006. At the time of accident, petitioner did not possess valid driving licence and the vehicle had no insurance. Therefore, the accused was charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences.

In response to the summons, accused appeared and pleaded not guilty. During trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 through whom Exs.P1 to P10 was marked. Accused was examined under S. 313 Cr.P.C. and it is a case of denial. No defence evidence was adduced. Learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty, passed judgment of conviction and imposed the sentences as aforementioned.

Sri P. Mahesha, learned advocate, contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegation against the accused-petitioner and that the findings/conclusions of the Courts below being without evidentiary support are perverse and hence, interference is warranted.

Sri Vijaya kumar Majage, learned HCGP, on the other hand, supported the Judgments/orders passed by the Courts below and sought dismissal of this petition.

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

Whether the conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Ss. 279 and 304-A IPC and Ss. 181, 187 and 196 of IMV Act and the sentences imposed is justified?

Ex. P1 is the inquest report. Ex. P2 is the postmortem report of deceased Kumara. Ex. P3 is the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector. Ex. P1 to P3 were marked by consent. Ex. P3 shows that the accident did not occur on account of any mechanical defect.

PW-1 is eyewitness. Ex. P4 is the complaint. Ex. P5 is mahazar. PW-1 has attested Ex. P5/spot mahazar. The said document has been attested by PW-6, who has supported the prosecution case. Evidence of PW-1/ eyewitness, shows that the vehicle was driven at high speed and was dashed to the cyclist, who sustained grievous injury and was immediately taken to the hospital. He has said that the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.

PW-3 has said that the accused was driving the vehicle and herself and PWs.2 and 3 were the passengers and that she heard the sound of cycle and that the auto toppled and she fell down and that PWs.4 and 5 fell on her and as a result, she sustained injuries. She said that the cycle was coming from opposite direction and she was taken to nearby clinic.

PWs.4 and 5 have said that, on 2.1.2006, when they were traveling along with PW-3 in the autorickshaw, the vehicle toppled, they fell down and sustained injuries.

PW-8 has said that, he helped PW-7 to buy the autorickshaw. PW-10 is the witness to Ex. P1/inquest mahazar. PW-9 is the Investigating Officer.

When the factual scenario is considered in the light of the evidence of witnesses, noticed supra, along with Exs.P1 to P5, the inevitable conclusion is that, the Courts below are justified in finding the accused-petitioner guilty of the offences under the provisions, aforestated. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts are neither perverse nor illegal. No interference with regard to the Judgment of conviction is warranted. The petitioner is still young. At the time of accident, petitioner was not under the influence of any alcoholic drink or drugs. The accident has occurred on account of rash and/or negligent act simplicitor. The accident occurred more than six years ago. In the circumstances, it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to six months, for the offence under S. 304-A IPC.

In the result, the conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offences under Ss. 279 and 304-A IPC and 181, 187 and 196 IMV Act is confirmed. The sentence of fine awarded for the offences under Ss. 279 IPC and 304-A IPC and Ss. 181, 187 and 196 IMV Act is confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment awarded for the offence under S. 304-A IPC is modified and the petitioner is ordered to undergo S.I. for six months. The bail bond and surety bond are cancelled and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Trial Court to serve the sentence.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.