2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 12043
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D.HUDDAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1030/2014
BETWEEN:
Sri Kolla Bhovi
S/o Sanna Kolla Bhovi,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at Bhavikere,
Tarikere Taluk,
Chikmgalur District - 576 301.
… Petitioner
(By Sri K.Prasannashetty, Advocate)
AND:
State by Tarikere Police Station,
Tarikere, Represented by
Special Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore - 560 001.
… Respondent
(By Sri V.V.Vinayaka, HCGP)
This
Criminal
Revision
Petition
is
filed
under
Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set
aside the order dated 23.09.2014 passed by the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagalur, in
Sessions Case No.8/2014 and discharge the petitioner for the
offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC.
R
2
This Criminal Revision Petition having been heard and
reserved on 17.02.2023, coming on for pronouncement of
orders, this day, the Court made the following :
Revision petitioner-accused has preferred this revision
under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short
‘Cr.P.C’) challenging the order dated 23.09.2014 passed by
the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur in
Sessions Case No.8/2014, dismissing his application seeking
discharge for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part
II of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).
2.
Brief and relevant of facts of the case are as
under :
That on Ummer Sab S/o Khalandar Sab lodged a
compliant on 20.01.2013 before Tarikere Town Police Station
alleging, that on 20.01.2013, by loading the vegetable in his
Mahidra Maximo motor vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-18/A-8799
was moving towards Shimogga along with Gangadharappa on
Kadur-Birur road at about 7.30 p.m. When he was so moving
within the jurisdiction of Bettadahalli Village at about
3
8.30 p.m., the driver of a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-04/A-
8166 by driving his lorry in high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner came from behind and dashed against the
Mahindra Maximo vehicle from behind. Because of this
impact, the inamate of the Mahindra Maximo Gangadharappa
sustained head injury and the vehicle of the complainant was
damaged. It is alleged that, the said driver of the lorry did
not stop the lorry. Complainant followed the said lorry along
with one Jafar for about two kilometers. When he was so
following near Ajjampur Cross near Shaneshwar Temple, the
said lorry driver was driving the lorry in high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner dashed against the tractor
bearing Reg.No.KA-28-T/6380 which was coming from
opposite direction. Because of this accident, the tractor
engine was completely damaged and the driver of the tractor
sustained injuries on his person. The injured were shifted to
the hospital. With these allegations, a complaint came to be
filed which was registered in Crime No.14/2013 of Tarikere
Town Police Station and criminal law was set in motion.
4
3.
The
Investigating
Officer
conducted
the
investigation and after completion of the investigation filed
the charge-sheet against the accused persons for the
offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304 Part II of
IPC and Sections 134(a) and (b) read with Section 181 of
Motor Vehicles Act.
4.
As the offences are triable by the Sessions Court,
the jurisdictional Magistrate committed the case to the
Sessions Court for trial. The said case was made over to the I
Additional Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru. Accused was in
custody at that time.
5.
The Jurisdictional Magistrate had complied the
provisions Section 207 of Cr.P.C by supplying the copies of
the police papers to the accused.
6.
After committal of the case, accused filed an
application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C praying to discharge
him for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of
IPC by framing charge for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337 and 304 of IPC read with Section 134(a)
5
and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Public
Prosecutor filed objections to the said application.
7.
The learned I Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Chikmagalur vide order dated 23.09.2014, rejected
the said application and farmed the charges against the
accused
person
for
the
offences
punishable
Sections 279, 337, 304(2) of IPC and Sections 134(a) and
(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
8.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the rejection
of his application, now the accused has filed this revision
petition challenging the said order on the following grounds :
i.
In addition to narrating the facts of the case so
pleaded by the complainant, it is contended that
the
learned
Sessions
Judge
has
failed
to
appreciate the contentions of the petitioner. The
accused
was
medically
examined
by
the
Government Medical Officer and noticed the
breath smell of alcohol and slurring of speech and
based upon that the learned Judge has come to
the conclusion that the accused had consumed
alcohol which according to the accused is not
6
correct. It was an e