James vs The State Of Karnataka

2024 INSC 1038 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ____________OF 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1296/ 2023)

JAMES Appellant(s)……

VERSUS

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)…….

JUDGMENT

PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present special leave petition is filed by the petitioner

against the judgment and final order dated 08.07.2022 passed by

the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru whereby the High Court

dismissed the Revision Petition and upheld the sentence of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

months S.I. under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2024.12.20 18:55:02 IST Reason:

(hereinafter ‘IPC’) and also upheld the fine of Rs. 1000/- for the

1 offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC passed by the Trial

court on 23.09.2013.

FACTS

3. The case of the prosecution is that on October 18, 2009, at

approximately 1 pm, the petitioner was driving his Qualis vehicle,

registration number KA-01/M-3840, on the NH 206 road from

Bhadravathi to Tarikeri, with a high speed and in rash and

negligent manner and he dashed against the motor cycle of one

Dinesh Kailaje from behind who was riding his TVS Motorcycle,

registration number KA 14 W 9116, with his son PW2 as a pillion

rider. Due to the said accident, Dinesh Kailaje suffered severe

injuries to his head and other parts of his body, while his son

sustained minor injuries. On October 21, 2009, early in the

morning, Dinesh Kailaje succumbed to grievous injuries in

Mangalore's KMC Hospital. The Police of Paper Town Police

Station, Bhadravathi, registered a case CC No. 473/2010 against

the accused punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC based

on the information provided by the eyewitness to the case. When

the accused appeared before the Trial court, he claimed to be tried

and pleaded not guilty to the charge brought against him.

2

4. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court vide judgment

dated 23.09.2013, concluded that the prosecution had

successfully proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable

doubt and accordingly, sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-

for the offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code

and in default, one month S.I. alongwith 6 months S.I. for offence

punishable under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code.

5. On appeal filed by the petitioner, the First Appellate Court i.e.

the court of Fast Track at Bhadravathi, vide order dated

24.01.2015, confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the trial court.

6. The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the Criminal Revision

Petition filed by the petitioner, vide impugned judgment dated

08.07.2022, holding that the judgment of conviction and sentence

passed by the Trial court subsequently upheld by the Appellate

court has come to the right conclusion that the prosecution has

successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable

doubt and the accused has not probabilised his defence.

3 CONTENTIONS

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended before us

that the courts below have failed to appreciate that even if the case

of the prosecution is accepted in its totality, the ingredients of

offense under Section 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code are not

made out. It is further contention of the counsel for the Petitioner

that in fact, the incident occurred as a result of contributory

negligence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

testimonies of PW 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not reliable as they are

interested witnesses and as they happen to be the relatives of the

deceased. The counsel further contended that there are differences

in the versions of the witnesses of which the benefit ought to be

given to the accused. Further, PW 1, 5 and 8 have not supported

the case of the prosecution and evidence of PW 2 to 4

(eyewitnesses) does not corroborate with evidence of other

prosecution witnesses. None of the witnesses stated anything

specific about rash and negligent act on the part of the

accused. Moreover, the evidence of PW 3 and 4 was full of

improvements and the same contradicts statements given before

the police. Thus, it was contended that the version of the witnesses

was not trustworthy. It was also contended that the High court

4 failed to consider the contents of Ex. P.11/MVI report that the

incident was due to negligence of the rider of TVS which

corroborated the defence of the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for respondent the State of Karnataka

submitted that the order passed by the High Court is a well-

reasoned order and does not warrant any interference by this

Court.

ANALYSIS

9. Heard the arguments and perused the judgments of the High

Court as well as relevant documents from both sides.

10. As per the deposition of PW2, he was riding with his father

to their uncle's residence in Bhadravati. He was the pillion rider at

the time of collision. It is impossible to determine the likelihood

that PW2 witnessed the collision because his car struck them from

behind.

11. PW3 had stated in his deposition that he was waiting for the

deceased and his son to arrive. Around 1:00 PM, he noticed that

the deceased person's motorcycle was approaching from the

Shivamoga side. At that moment, the Qualis vehicle was

approaching at a high speed, acting rashly and carelessly, and it

5 crashed into the back side of the vehicle of the deceased person.

The Qualis vehicle continued and came to a stop a short distance

away. Following the aforementioned incident, the deceased and

PW2 collapsed onto the road, where they observed blood seeping

from the deceased's ears.

12. According to the deposition of PW4, Dinesh Kailaje had turned

on his indicator light to turn left when he was 20 meters away from

Kalinganahalli Cross. The accident took place at that point of time

when his son who was pillion rider on the motorcycle was extending his

left hand. The Qualis vehicle coming behind dragged his son along with

the bike. The front side portion near head light on the left side of the

Qualis vehicle dashed against the rear side of the bike. Both the riders

fell down on the road at the place of accident.

13. According to the post-mortem performed on the body of the

deceased person, the cause of death was blunt force trauma-

related cranio-cerebral injuries. The deceased had suffered as

many as 19 physical wounds. Based on the post-mortem report,

the courts below have rightly observed that death of the deceased

is due to above mentioned injuries suffered.

14. The prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused has

further relied upon the spot sketch which is Ex. P 13 as per the

6 oral testimony of PW10. The High Court has rightly appreciated

the fact that the width of the road being 24 feet, there was enough

room available for the Petitioner who was riding the Qualis to pass

through the wide road without getting entangled with the vehicle

of the deceased. The trial court also has rightly appreciated the

fact that as the road was so wide it would not have been prudent

for a person to make a sudden turn which is the bone of contention

of the Petitioner to suggest that there was contributory

negligence.

15. Another significant fact is that the Qualis vehicle was at such

a high speed that the vehicle of the deceased was dragged for about

15 feet and was not just an incidental collusion. The Reports

annexed coupled with the testimonies of the witnesses does

indicate that the conduct of the accused was indeed a rash and

negligent one.

16. The record also indicates that during the stage of recording

the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused had failed to

give a reasonable explanation when the incriminating material was

brought to his notice.

17. In our considered opinion, the Petitioner has miserably failed

to raise a reasonable doubt to probabalise the version narrated by 7 him. The High Court and the Courts below are right in concluding

that the act of the Petitioner was a rash and negligent one and have

thereby rightly convicted the accused Petitioner.

18. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Farrukh Rasheed,

while arguing, had submitted that the petitioner is 48 years old,

doing a small business and has old, aged ailing parents. He is the

sole bread earning member of his family and has three sons and a

wife who are all dependent on him. He has no criminal antecedent.

He also submitted that Section 304A of Indian Penal Code also

provides a punishment as fine and considering the special

circumstances of the present case, prayed for the sentence of six

months to be converted into fine. In our considered opinion, the

present case is not fit for extending sympathy and taking a lenient

view especially considering that the said rash and negligent act of

the accused has caused death of one person as well as injuries to

one other.

19. In view of the above, we observe that this appeal does not

warrant any interference and is hereby dismissed.

8

20. Pending application(s), if any, are also accordingly disposed

of.

.......................................J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

.........................................J. [PRASANNA B. VARALE]

NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 20, 2024.

9