Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 20676

- 1 -

CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1215 OF 2018
BETWEEN:

SRI. K. HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O. LATE KAMPALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SOLLAPURA VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA TALUK,
PIN-577 520.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.VIJAY SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY CHITRADURGA,
TRAFFIC POLICE STATION,
CHITRADURGA-515 281.

…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K, HCGP)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
OF
THE
APPEAL
IN
CRIMINAL
APPEAL
NO.27/2018
DATED
04.10.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND
C.J.M, CHITRADURGA IN C.C.NO.19/2016 DATED 26.05.2018 FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 338 AND 304A
OF IPC READ WITH SECTION 187 OF IMV ACT AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Digitally signed
by SUMA
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -

CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2018

The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident.

Headnote:
NEGLIGENT DRIVING - [MOTOR VEHICLE ACT] - The petitioner, who was driving a tractor, was convicted for causing an accident that resulted in the death of one person and injuries to another. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove that he was the driver of the tractor at the time of the accident. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the evidence on record, including the testimony of eyewitnesses and the statement of the owner of the tractor, established that the petitioner was the driver of the tractor and was responsible for the accident.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was driving a tractor on a service road when he entered the road from a national highway and collided with a motorcycle. The rider of the motorcycle was killed and the pillion rider was injured. The petitioner was charged with causing death by negligence, causing grievous hurt by negligence, and rash and negligent driving.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was negligent in driving the tractor and was responsible for the accident. The court relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses, the statement of the owner of the tractor, and the scene of the accident to conclude that the petitioner was the driver of the tractor at the time of the accident.
Issues: Whether the prosecution had proved that the petitioner was the driver of the tractor at the time of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence on record, including the testimony of eyewitnesses and the statement of the owner of the tractor, established that the petitioner was the driver of the tractor and was responsible for the accident.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the conviction of the petitioner.

The petitioner has filed this revision petition challenging

the correctness of the judgment of conviction and the order of

sentence dated 26.05.2018 convicting the petitioner for the

offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC

R/w Section 187 of IMV Act and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for

the offence punishable under Section 279 and a sum of

Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 and a

sum of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section

304(A) and Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section

187 of the IMV Act. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the

judgment passed by the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.27/2018, by

which, the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court was

upheld.

2. The petitioner was tried for the offences punishable

under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC R/w Section 187 of

the IMV Act. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to

be tried. The prosecution examined the injured victim as PW-1

and an eye witness was examined as PW-4 and the

investigating Officer was examined as PW-6. The owner of the

offending vehicle was examined as PW-9 and exhibits P1 to P21

- 3 -

were marked. The sworn statement of the petitioner was

recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC. The petitioner did not

lead any defense evidence. Based on oral and documentary

evidence, the trial Court held that the prosecution had proved

beyond doubt that the petitioner was guilty of the offences

punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC R/w

Section 187 of IMV Act and convicted him for the offences as

aforesaid. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the Sessions

Court in Crl.A.No.27/2018 was dismissed.

Being aggrieved by the same, this revision petition

is filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the trial Court failed to notice that PW-1 deposed that on

the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle ran

away and that she had not seen the driver. He therefore

submitted that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to

conduct a Test identification to identify the petitioner as the

person who was driving the offending vehicle on the date of the

accident. He further contended that none of the prosecution

witnesses had identified him as the person who was driving the

- 4 -

vehicle as on the date of the accident and therefore the

prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner

beyond doubt. He further contended that PW-4 was the eye

witness who deposed that he had not seen the driver on the

date of the accident and that he saw him before the police

station for the first time and before the Court for the second

time. He further contended that PW-9 who was the owner of

the vehicle did not specifically mention that it was the accused

who was driving the vehicle as on the date of the accident and

therefore, there was a doubt whether the accused was the

person who was driving the vehicle as on the date of the

accident. He further contended that PW-1 deposed that the

vehicle was not carrying a registration number while PW-9 who

was the Investigating Officer deposed that the vehicle did carry

a registration number and therefore, there was a doubt

regarding the involvement of the tractor in question. He

therefore submitted that, the trial Court as well as the

Appellate Court failed to consider that the prosecution had

failed to establish that the petitioner was responsible for the

accident. He therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment of

- 5 -

conviction passed by the trial Court and which was upheld by

the Appellate Court may be set aside.

Per contra the learned High Court Government

Pleader submitted that there was no irregularity in the

procedure adopted by the trial Court while disposing of the

case. On facts, he contended that PW-1 was the injured victim

who deposed about the manner of the accident which

demonstrated beyond doubt that the accident was due to

negligence of the driver of the tractor. He further contended

that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document