Sri Bheemappa vs State

N. Ananda, J.—There are concurrent findings of the courts below that petitioner is guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. Therefore, petitioner is before this court. The law is fairly well settled, this court while exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 Cr.P.C., does not sit as a court second appeal. This court can interfere with the impugned judgment if the courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or appreciation of law.

I have heard Sri. P.H. Virupakshaiah, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the State.

The petitioner was tried for the aforestated offences on the allegations that at about 5.30 a.m., on 03.05.2008, the petitioner drove KSRTC bus bearing No. KA-32/F-1184 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner on Nandi Bevur-Harappanahalli road and dashed the bus against a bullock cart in which PW. 1, 6 and 7 were travelling. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of KSRTC Bus bearing No. KA 32/F-1184 by the petitioner. As a result of accident, the bullock cart was damaged, one of the bullocks succumbed to injuries and the persons travelling in the bullock cart viz., PW''s. 1, 6 and 7 also suffered injuries.

Sri. P.H. Virupakshaiah, learned counsel for petitioner has made following submissions:

I The accident took place at about 5.30 a.m., on 03.05.2008, when there was poor visibility.

II There was a curve near the place of accident.

III The light shed by Head lights of KSRTC bus had fallen on the eyes of bullocks, they got scared and drew the bullock cart helter-skelter.

IV The circumstances would suggest that accident was beyond the control of petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate would justify the impugned judgment.

As per the version of injured witnesses, the accident took place at about 5.30 a.m., on 03.05.2008 however, they have denied a suggestion that there was poor visibility on the road. Even otherwise, it has been elicited from the eyewitnesses that at the time of accident, the head lights of KSRTC bus were on. Therefore, there was no difficulty for petitioner to see the bullock cart in the light shed by the headlights of KSRTC bus. It is true that PW''s. 1 and 6 have admitted that there is a curve near the place of accident however, it is not elicited from them that the curve is a blind curve and petitioner (driver of KSRTC bus) could not see the bullock cart coming from opposite direction.

The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that witnesses have not given the speed of the bus at the time of accident. In my considered opinion, it is too much to expect from the persons injured in the accident to state about exact or approximate speed of the bus.

PW. 1 and other witnesses have deposed about the incident. One of the bullocks suffered injuries and succumbed to injuries, the bullock cart was damaged and the persons who were travelling in the bullock cart were also injured. These facts would lead to an inference that bus was driven at high speed by the petitioner. The petitioner (driver of KSRTC bus) could notice the bullock cart in the light shed by the headlights of the bus. The petitioner was also aware that bullocks did not have road sense and they are likely to come across the. bus. In the circumstances, he should have reduced the speed of bus or brought the bus to halt to avoid collision between the bus and bullock cart.

On re-appreciation of evidence, I do not find any reason to interfere with impugned judgment.

The learned trial judge has sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months for an offence punishable u/s 279 IPC, and further sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months for an offence punishable u/s 337 IPC and six months for an offence punishable u/s 338 IPC.

An offence u/s 279 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

An offence u/s 337 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

An offence u/s 338 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

The petitioner (accused) has been working as a driver in KSRTC. The evidence on record does not indicate that he had committed similar offences in the past. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the I-appellate court may affect his service conditions.

The learned trial judge having sentenced the accused for offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 IPC, should not have passed separate sentence for an offence punishable u/s 279 IPC, as offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 IPC are aggravated form of an offence punishable u/s 279 IPC. Therefore, I am of the opinion that sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the I-appellate court needs modification. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

The Revision Petition is accepted in part. The impugned judgment of conviction of accused for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, is confirmed. The sentence is modified. The sentence of imprisonment for an offence punishable u/s 279 IPC is set aside. The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for an offence punishable u/s 337 IPC, in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for an offence punishable u/s 338 IPC, in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.