The court ruled that the offence under Section 279 of IPC merges with Section 304A, thus modifying the sentence granted for the former while affirming the convictions for rash and negligent driving leading to death.

ORDER :

1. The revision petitioner being accused No.2 in C.C.No.6340/2018, on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi (for short ‘Trial Court’) is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.03.2021, convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and under Section 187 of the Indian MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) and sentencing to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304(a) of IPC; and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 187 of M.V.Act, with default sentences, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.27/2021 connected with Criminal Appeal No.31/2021 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi (for short ‘First Appellate Court’) vide common judgment dated 06.07.2022.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that, PW.1 being the wife of the deceased lodged the first information as per Ex.P1. On the basis of the same, FIR as per Ex.P21 came to be registered for the above said offences against accused Nos.1 and 2 being the drivers of autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-32/B-9211 and bolero vehicle bearing registration No.KA-32/Z-4365 respectively. The investigation was undertaken. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended and final report came to be filed alleging that, when the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle, accused No1 was driving the autorickshaw and he dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of which the deceased fell down along with his motorcycle. Accused No.2 who was driving the bolero jeep, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and ran it over the head of the deceased and as a result, he sustained fatal injuries. The injured was immediately shifted to private hospital and took treatment there for two days. Later, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kalaburagi, where he died due to the injuries suffered by him. Therefore, it is the contention of the prosecution that accused No.1 being the driver of autorickshaw and accused No.2 being the driver of bolero jeep, were driving their respective vehicles in rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased.

3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and registered the criminal case. The accused have appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P26 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminatory materials available on record, but have not led any evidence in support of their defence. However, Ex.D1 was got marked by learned counsel for accused No.1.

4. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.1 had preferred Criminal Appeal No.31/2021 and accused No.2 had preferred Criminal Appeal No.27/2021. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the materials, passed the common judgment dismissing both the appeals. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.2 is before this Court.

5. Heard Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Gopalkrishna B. Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the materials on record.

6. In view