A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale also rejected the contention of the appellant James that the ingredients of offence under Section 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code were not made out and the incident occurred as a result of contributory negligence.

 

"In our considered opinion, the petitioner has miserably failed to raise a reasonable doubt to probabalise the version narrated by 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," the bench said.

 

In a last-ditch attempt, his counsel submitted that the petitioner was 48 years old, doing a small business and had old, aged ailing parents.

 

The counsel said that the appellant was the sole bread-earning member of his family and had three sons and a wife who were all dependent on him. He had no criminal antecedent as well.

 

He also submitted that Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code also provides a punishment as fine. Considering the special circumstances of the present case, he prayed for the sentence of six months to be converted into a 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," the bench, however, ruled.

 

The court dismissed the appeal against the judgment and final order of July 8, 2022, by the Karnataka High Court which upheld the sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment under Section 304A of the IPC and also upheld the fine of Rs 1000 for the convict under Section 279 of IPC passed by the trial court on September 23, 2013.

 

As per facts of the matter, on October 18, 2009, at approximately 1 pm, the petitioner was driving his Qualis vehicle on the NH 206 road from Bhadravathi to Tarikeri, at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and he dashed against the motorcycle of one Dinesh Kailaje from behind who was riding his TVS Motorcycle, registration number KA 14 W 9116, with his son 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 against the present appellant punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC based on the information provided by the eyewitness to the case.

 

On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court by its judgment on September 23, 2013, concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs 1,000 for the offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code and in default, one-month simple imprisonment along with six months jail for offence punishable under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code.

 

On appeal filed by the petitioner, the First Appellate Court i.e. the court of Fast Track at Bhadravathi, by its order on January 24, 2015, confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court.

 

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner.

 

After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Supreme Court noted that the deceased 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 in time when his son who was a 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 headlight 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 the accident.

 

According to the post-mortem, the court noted that 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 mentioned injuries suffered, the court held.

 

The bench felt the High Court had 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," the bench said.

 

The court noted that another significant fact was 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 collision.

 

"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," the bench said, dismissing the appeal.