Chandrashekar vs State Of Periyapatna Police on 17 November, 2009

The convicted accused is” in revision against the

judgment in Cr|.A.No.43/2001 on the fife of Judge}’.._’:i’?’a_st

Track Court, Mysore dated 29.9.2005

judgment in C.C.No.208/1996 on the _.fi:–e..AA_:’:rof”–i.::JMAF{i;”

Periyapatna, convicting the pétitioniet

punishabie under Sections 2?9.,,__. 337″‘,s_v_’3’38 of

I.P.C.

2. Heard Sri Maiiiantesh i.S}it:..os,rriatth, the learned

Counsel f0Fiihifa.VjQet’it§i.:J’f1e”f’–arid Sri””R’a}asubramanya Bhat, the
learned V”‘~Goyerrtn”ie’h”t.h’P_iead’e.r. for the respondent in
suppiementait-ionvof the’-rnat-erial on record.

;_T_he._ caseV”re–I–ates to motor vehicie accident on

‘=:s_;tv:é§:99’s:ri.éa::’:«:r;eranahani Village at a distance of 150 ft.

frorr1j’i<ee_ranhaifi Viilage gate on Buntwaidviysore road

id'-«.V__"inv0ivingv";;:assenger tempo bearing No.KA-O9~2127 driven

.the'*«_oetitioner herein.

W/i

4. Based on the teiephonic message the S,H.O., he

rushed to the place of occurrence and accepted the ‘report

submitted by one Nagaraju regarding the occurrence,,’u’In_:’

report, Nagaraju spelt out that at 9.30 a.rh_…

while he was along side of the road, saw

driving the tempo in questionin a¢_rash a_n7cr..ne’gli’QenitV”g

manner and having traversedlvlitininindfuitytion road
junction, hit against to the
impact, several died and
several were was taken
up by the injured to the
hospitalfiflon witnesses to occurrence,

spot mahazar.wasV”p,rep’a’red:and countersigned by two

witnesses and d’e_ad’ bodies were shifted to the hospital for

itheflinvestigation officer found 10 dead bodies and

severalrxpe:’rsoras:f.i*njured. During further investigation, the

_close””‘–.relativ~e«s of the victims were informed and their

7,=–sta.temen’ts”were also recorded.

PW.31, the Motor Vehicle Inspector examined the

it Ipfveffiiicle, and certified that the accident was not due to any

r§’@”‘

mechanical fault. Consequently charge sheet was filed

against the petitioner for offences punishable under

Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304–A of1.P.C. and the

was put to trial. He pieaded not guilty.

examined in all 35 witnesses and__pl.aced _’re’lia’nt;e

documents. The accused denied né:glig’ence in

and tried to plead that the accid’ent was clue to rnechariiicai = 3′

fault. Weighing the evidence Vof.ixt’i~1e’prosefcutiognggvand the
defence, the learned the charge as
proved and cons’ei’gu.entliy”‘cont/icted.._Vthevigetiftioner for the
offences to various terms

of irnprisionmentifand’=vai=io’t;i-S__amount of fine. Assailing the

judgmentfiofthe’-.étr’ia’i in C.C.No.208/1996, the

D€t§tlO’I;’l€”l’_WaS~V in,VCr’l”.A.’E\io..43/2001 reiterating the plea of

:’V:_inhocénceiifwh~:ir;_h was rejected by the appeiiate Court by

corifi«rmgi’rivg4fthe,3′.i’j,e.:idgment of the trial Court and thereby

Z acceptedV__va’ll.:}the findings of fact. However, the order

CA”4″-._regardinfgvsentence passed by the trial Court was modified

appellate Court as seen from judgment of the

appellate Court. Assailing the judgments of both the Courts,

the petitioner is before this Court.

6. The learned Counsel for the peii_t’ior;e.:r”””shift A’

Mahantesh S.i-iosmath would contend'”th’a’t.,_even

accused has been charged for thepffence

304–A of I.P.C., the triai Court an’d”‘the a”ppeiia.te’_:Céouvrtmhfave if

not examined the evidence. with”t’iiej’$ei’io._usne«ss”wi’th which
it was expected to do. Heuasuijmiitsithatiithéjiiei/i’d-ence brought
on record throiigih persons who had
suffered injugriesg-.co’uid__,.upon as it was the
statemerit” have suffered injuries
and Comment is made on the

evidence off’i>i.<~1iis.v15', ~18i,..ei9.;-~'i'21, 22, 23, 24, 26 and 29, who

-“‘~t_rave._i’:i_’e:d the veh’i’c!«.e…a’nd injured in the the accident due

CVthe.»va’ii–eged:”rash”driving. He submits that if the evidence is

accepted, not establish that the petitioner has

“committedvthe offences falling within the mischief of Section

oi~..304–A of I.P.C. The witnesses PWs.35, 25 and 28 are

____”‘those who are victims of the accident. He submits that, ali

‘Vthat they have stated is that the vehicie was driven at a

53 ?

v’

h

high speed ie, 50 i<m.per hour. He submits that PW.31

who has prepared the sketch Ex.P.42 deposed that he.._h;as

prepared the sketch after visiting the spot after

from the date of accident arid hence no credence

attached to the sketch. He further seubrnéits '.det_a_i'Is'._ V"

in Exs.P1 to 45 makes out no case a'gair$.Asit"

any of the offences alieged. i?yie]d.rew Ann/__ atte'h_ti'o;n""'Eo"the " it

admissions of the investigation.—-oVtti_ce:"–»..andi witvnestses that
the road on which the accused not in order.
There were many'::'d.eepV"'was uneven. It
was humaniy. road surface at

high speigd. __ it

7. As regards o_cc’urre–r’i’ce of the accident is concerned,

“‘h_e .__thatu”t’h«e.r.e’ was a mechanical fault due to

V’–disiiocigian’g.4:of;’front axie of the vehicle. The witnesses have

adniitted th.atj_’t:here was loud sound before the accident

_ ‘vo_’ccurred.V”‘I;_t supports the version of the accused that the

was due to mechanical fauit. Reference is aiso

____”‘.’made to the evidence of PW.31~Motor Vehicle Inspector who

‘ijadmits that he examined oniy the exterior portion of the

fi *>

vehicle and did not find out about the mechanical fault.

Such evidence supports the case of the accused.

8. Lastly, he submits that the accused _

passengers 10 minutes prior to the accident “ani:lifhen:ce he: .4 “~ it

could not have reached the high..:4sp_-ee.d.’4”–3n

Contention is that evidence fafiVs’«.suhort’roi’ leVgai’v:’e’;{idienVce:é to

sustain a charge for the offence’u:ndser Section 304-A of

I.P.C.

9. Howev.e«i’,.c_V’theiilearned-..VAGov_er’nreent Pleader Sri

Rajasubrama’rrva_”~-.Ei”ri’at__ofwhat is urged has

taken me to. Aoth,er “<iart.s the evidence led. Particular

reference isi«..I'i|orde 't~ot'he ,staternent of the inju red witnesses,

who in"unequVivo.icai""terms have stated of the rash and

by the driver which resulted in the

submit that none of the witnesses have

_been"'suggeste"d that there was mechanical fauit and even if

HH"it*–s'ugqre_stio'nw was made, it was not supported by any

i.evi_dence. As regards occurrence is concerned, he submits

it the accused has driven the vehicle in a rash _and

negligent manner at a piace where one wouid expect
reasonabie traffic and also movements of the persons. The

accident occurred within the iimits of the viilage an'ri:.""the

accused should have been cautious and alert. He

so. He therefore seeks confirmation of the two__Qrders_i.:as_ we'

are deaiing with a case reiating to

10. Keeping in mind wha’t.4_is by
have examined the records. the–. of the
offending vehicle has ‘.the__petitigonerdhexrein was
the driver at the rgeievantiggtindeg. on this

aspect. i~iei”ai-sio”j;adn:*ifi:t’s ofuhis v’e”riii:ie being involved in the
accident.:”‘Th’eref0re;:the’r’eV_:ifs.Zine dispute about the petitioner
being the driver ofthe lv.e’hir:’ie.

dfurrt-her noticed that through medical

V’evideTn’ce,”aprosiegcution has established that in the accident,

Rarri3_n’eyal{.a’gi:Clhandra, Suresha, Sharathkumar, Shirt’/ahna,

“»,.,..a.’i?uttaboviv,””;.Putti, Darshan and Basavaraju and Prema

injuries and succumbed to injuries. The medicai

-‘marked as E><s.P24 to 41 show that Rajiegowda,

,2"

0″”

Vishnu Rao, Venkatesh, K.N.Vidhya, Rajanna, Puttegowda,

Jarmaiah, Mahadevi, Thayamma, Thimmego»~.r§rd.a,

Puttamma, had suffered fracture of their

Suresha, Devaiah, Dayanandmurthyi Radha:’r:n?iaiViéisiarniu

Pasha, Appajigowda, Laxrnamma:=._had~-zsufferrefd “SVifi'”:3__p’i=::f’

injuries.

12. From other severai
passengers suffered of and some iost
their iives. We canvnotnforget of impact

reiates to the4_V\}.eio§%ity at”.wiii_ch was moving”. If

the accus’e’d sta’ted~.Vgwas ‘dri’vi’ng at a speed of “SO
km.p.hr.L”‘i_the_ where the vehicie hit a

roadside treewouid ~not.,sbe.—“so devasting as it has. The fact

“”~tE’iat persons di’ed.._..s.A:nile being in the vehicle itseif and

rothser”vpei”vso’ns’;ixrr1–0re than 15 persons were injured, bears

testirrioény to the fact that the vehicEe was driven at

high speed, which hit a roadside tree, and the impact

‘~g_”ener”a~ted was of severe intensity. It had the effect of

‘V”-____””.é5niVffing life of 16 passengers and render several other

flpassengers crippied. The accused has unfortunateiy escaped

%A 2/

may not be strictiy applicable to the charge for which the

petitioner is subjected to trial. But, it is an ‘.aiVd’.g4_”for

appreciation of evidence, which is mandate of

the Evidence Act. Keeping in mind the evidei~’i’ce:i:on”i<éC'oVrd;:u

we find that the evidence spelles out the'a,cts"reQriomésslion at

driving of vehicie by the petitior:e.r–accu,_sedVai'id"i'CgQnstitiiteVs

rashness and negligence, from
actionable negligence to V

15. The trial. vCou:rt’-hafs based on
material on from no iegal
infirmityg'”‘e>§cept””‘piea%ding that the accident
was dtielitol’ has not expiained how the

accident oc’c’u.rredV.’ -.1A’ahaifconstraéned to hold that the

“”~conc11:_i”:s.i0;r1cV.of the”tri–a.l.i«Court is just in the circumstances

.7base’d~ and the confirmation of the same by the

appeilalte Coc’rt..i’s aiso a right conclusion. I am therefore not

‘ip_’ersuao’.ed’g_toV accept any of the grounds to revise the finding

the*tria| Court on any of these fact circumstances.

<3 2;':

inj’

deserves no liberai consideration. However, considering the
circumstances in which accused / petitioner is piace. v’.VIi..h’aye

considered the order regarding sentence.

18. The accused has been sentengceégi to it

years R.I. for offence punishable

I.P.C. with fine of Rs.5,000/’–«.._,:”‘iviVe aisou to ” 3’

undergo R.I. for 1 year for the o.ffengc.e”‘iinder “SeiC.tiQ»::§1 338 of
I.P.C. and pay fine of Et’he_Voffe;nce under
Section 337 I.P.vC_.:,” he has of Rs,1,000/–
and sentenced For offence

under Sectii’on_2Tf9 IV”.:P;;’C.’;’–h’e. hasbeievn sentenced to undergo

s.1. for Eifimoyntfisj of Rs.1,000/– with defauit
sentence. 3 3

‘far as order regarding fine for offence

uf’ndefr_ 338, and 304~–A I.P.C., it is confirmed.

‘FL.-irth:_er, the order regarding sentence to undergo S.31.

v~forn_6frnonths for offence under Section 279 of I.P.C. is set-

ii’-____”.asifde as the same couid be merged with the sentence for

ifkthe offence under Section 304–A of I.F>.C.

As regards the offence under Section 337 of I-.’i7._.>C.,

the order regarding imprisonment for 6

down to a period of 1 month. For the offence under, M

338 of I.P.C., the period of imprisonment is s«cai’ed_ :€io:wn'”:

from 1 year to 2 months and for the’.ofi”e_nce

304~A 0fI.PJ2,the sentence eriefipnsoemnentrbruzqyeereis
scaled down to a period modn’ths_;’:4 if 1

Ail the sentences

22. The eceeeed @ refienea7:o_have deposfied the
amount of be apportioned in

between thevi’r’nj’i’i

The accusediiwiii’=be’*enti”tied’ to set–off for the period of
irnprisonmjent,undVer*gone as permissibie under Section 428

surrender before the trial Court:

“within si$'<"-.we.e'k's-.ti3 undergo the sentence.

Sd/~
IUDGE