Sri Kumara vs State of Karnataka

N. Ananda, J.—There are concurrent findings of courts below. The courts below have held that petitioner is guilty of offences punishable under sections 279 & 304A IPC. Therefore, petitioner is before this court. I have heard Sri T. Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Vijayakumar 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 19.12.2004 at about 8.30 a.m., petitioner being driver of goods van bearing No. KA-03/B-6051, drove the vehicle at a high speed on Malavalli-Maddur Road, within the limits of Malavalli Town and dashed against bicycle ridden by deceased Revanna.

The learned counsel for petitioner referring to the evidence of PW 1 & PW 2 would submit that they have given different versions and their versions are not consistent. Therefore, trial court should have extended the benefit of doubt to petitioner.

It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that accident took place at about 8.50 a.m. on 19.12.2004 on Malavalli-Maddur Road, within the limits of Malavalli Town. Deceased Revanna was riding a bicycle ahead of vehicle driven by petitioner. The vehicle driven by petitioner hit the bicycle from its behind.

During cross-examination of PW 1 & PW 2, an unsuccessful attempt has been made to establish that deceased was riding a bicycle, in order to avoid potholes on the road, deceased came across vehicle driven by petitioner and dashed against the vehicle driven by petitioner. The petitioner was driving vehicle on Maddur-Malavalli road, within Malavalli Town limits at about 8.50 a.m., on 19.12.2004. The petitioner owed a duty towards safety of pedestrians and other users of road. The petitioner could see deceased who was proceeding ahead of him. Even if deceased had ridden bicycle across vehicle of petitioner, if petitioner had driven vehicle at a low speed, he could have brought vehicle to halt.

The matter can be considered from another angle also. If there were potholes, they were common to both petitioner and deceased. In the circumstances, the defence of petitioner that deceased had come across vehicle driven by petitioner cannot be accepted. The courts below on proper appreciation of evidence have held petitioner guilty of offences punishable under sections 279 & 304A IPC.

The petitioner was aged about 27 years at the time of accident. He has wife and children to care for. The evidence on record does not reveal that he had committed similar offences in the past. The trial court having convicted petitioner for offences punishable under sections 279 & 304A IPC should not have passed a separate sentence for an offence punishable u/s 279 IPC as an offence u/s 304A IPC is an aggravated form of offence u/s 279 IPC. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that sentence passed by trial court requires modification. In the result, I pass the following:-

ORDER

The revision petition is accepted in part. The judgment of conviction of petitioner for offences punishable under sections 279 & 304A IPC is confirmed. The sentence passed for an offence punishable u/s 279 IPC is set aside. The petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for an offence punishable u/s 304A IPC.