RAVILINGA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner was the accused before the Trial Court in the following circumstances: It was alleged by the prosecution that on 30.09.2006, the complainant and his friends had proceeded on two wheelers from Bangalore to Dharmasthala. They had left Bangalore at 3.30 a.m. and had reached Jogipura by 6.30 a.m., at which point of time, Santhosh Rashmi and Chandrashekar Biradar who were on their motorcycle bearing No.KA-01-EJ.132 were going ahead, while the complainant and others were behind them in three other motorcycles. It transpires that a lorry which was being driven by the petitioner herein had come from the opposite direction and according to the complainant, it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and the said lorry bearing No.KA.04-B.5697 had dashed against the motorcycle, as a result of which Chandrashekar Biradar and Santosh Rashmi were thrown off their vehicle and had sustained bleeding injuries. While they were being taken to hospital, Chandrashekar Biradar had succumbed to the injuries and it is on the basis of those allegations that the police had registered a case and a charge-sheet had been filed against the accused after completion of investigation, for offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC' for brevity). The accused petitioner had entered appearance and contested the proceedings and claimed to be tried. The prosecution therefore examined PWs 1 to 7 and marked Exhibits P1 to P8(a). On the basis of the evidence tendered and the arguments canvassed, the court below had framed the following points for consideration, (which is loosely translated into English), which reads as follows:

(3.) THOUGH the arguments canvassed on behalf of the petitioner appears to be attractive, it cannot be said that the findings of fact arrived at by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court, are without substance. It is with reference to the material on record that the courts below have held that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The fact that there was an accident and that the deceased had died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident, are not in dispute. The further circumstance that there was no positive evidence of the petitioner being the driver of the offending vehicle at that point of time, is also immaterial, since he has not challenged the proceedings on that ground and it is for the first time that such a contention is raised before this Court. Therefore, the alleged inconsistency as between the case of the prosecution and the evidence of the witness as to whether as a result of the head-on collision, PW-2 and the deceased had fallen under the vehicle or had fallen away from the vehicle, is not a circumstance that requires to be addressed with any close scrutiny to hold that the prosecution has not made out a case at all. As already stated, neither the accident nor the death as a result of the accident can be denied. The fact that the petitioner was indicated as the driver of the vehicle, has not been seriously disputed at any point of time. Therefore, the contentions put forth do not hold water. The only circumstance is that the Trial Court has thought it fit to convict the accused for an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC as well as under 304-A IPC. Since the punishment that is imposed under these two sections would override each other, the court below having proceeded to impose such punishment twice over, is found unnecessary. Secondly, the manner in which the accident has occurred, would give room for some speculation as to whether there was indeed want of diligence on the part of the petitioner. But, since the accident itself cannot be disputed, it would be necessary to impose punishment on the petitioner, but not of the degree as imposed by the courts below. Therefore, with a modification as to the punishment imposed, namely that the punishment imposed under Section 279 IPC is set-aside since the petitioner is already punished under Section 304-A IPC for a period of two years and the fact that there is some element of speculation insofar as the manner in which the accident has occurred, the petitioner ought to get the benefit of doubt to the extent of the punishment that is imposed being reduced to six months instead of two years under Section 304-A IPC. In addition to the fine already paid, the petitioner shall be liable to pay a further sum of Rs.15,000/- as fine, which amount shall be paid as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased victim, after ascertaining their bona fides.