M.B.Suresh vs State By Kadur Police
2024 Latest Caselaw 10146 Kant

Karnataka High Court

M.B.Suresh vs State By Kadur Police on 8 April, 2024

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC:14996
                                                         CRL.RP No. 210 of 2016




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                                               BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                             CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 210 OF 2016
                      BETWEEN:

                      M.B.SURESH,
                      SON OF M.M. BHEEMAIAH,
                      AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
                      RESIDING AT NO.26,
                      6TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN,
                      KN EXTENSION,
                      YESHWANTHAPURA,
                      BENGALURU - 560 022.
                                                                 ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y T., ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      STATE BY KADUR POLICE,
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA           CHIKKAMANGALURU - 573 231.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                                                       ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
                      (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)

                            THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C.,
                      PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 01.10.2015
                      PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.76/2014 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. S.J.,
                      AT CHIKKAMAGALURU AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED
                      16.06.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
                      KADUR IN C.C.NO. 564/2011.

                           THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
                      THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                        -2-
                                                   NC: 2024:KHC:14996
                                              CRL.RP No. 210 of 2016




                                      ORDER

The petitioner/accused who is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC is before this Court.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 05.03.2011, the petitioner/accused drove the Maruti Omni car in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger the human life, and dashed against the tractor and trailer which was parked on the left side of the road, due to which the Umashankar and Eshwarappa who were the inmates of the Maruti Omni Car sustained injuries and succumbed to the same.

3. The prosecution to proves its case examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P13. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record held that the prosecution has established the guilt of the petitioner/accused beyond all reasonable doubt and passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. Against which the present revision petition is filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

5. P.Ws.3 to 5 are the eye witnesses to the accident and in their cross examination they have categorically stated that the tractor and trailer was parked partly on the road and partly on the mud road, and there were no warning indicator alerting the other drivers that the tractor and trailer was parked. The accident had taken place at 11:00 p.m. and the driver of the tractor and trailer was under obligation to switch on the indicators to alert the other drivers who were proceeding on the road,

NC: 2024:KHC:14996

indicating that the tractor and trailer has been parked to change the punctured tyre.

6. The panchanama at Ex.P.10 indicated that the tractor and trailer was parked partly on the road and partly on the side of the road and therefore, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner alone was responsible for causing the accident, though the petitioner/accused was under the obligation to take sufficient measures to avoid the accident.

7. The petitioner/accused was in judicial custody for 145 days. The offence under section 304-A of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for maximum period of two years or with fine or with both. The petitioner/accused having undergone imprisonment for 148 days, it would be appropriate to confine the sentence of imprisonment for the period which he has already undergone. In the above facts and circumstances, I pass the following :

ORDER

i. Criminal revision petition is allowed.

ii. The judgment of convicting the petitioner for the aforesaid offences is hereby confirmed.

iii. The order of sentence dated 16.06.2014 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur in C.C.No.564/2011 and confirmed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Crl.A.No.76/2014 is hereby modified as follows:

a. The petitioner/accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 279,

NC: 2024:KHC:14996

338 and 304-A of IPC for the period which is already undergone, subject to payment of fine amount imposed by the Trial Court in the order of sentence.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RKA