IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD
DATED Tms THE 10TH DAY or sEPTEMBE=;§ f _
Before
THE H"0N'BLE MR JUSTICE HICILUYJAAEJI G 1 a, 7
Criminal Revision Petiticm NoV.':26'9/2008 ' 3
Between:
K. Manjunath, _e ;
S/o K. Bheemappa, V '
Aged about 26 years, V A ' V _ ' . _ _ s_ .
Occ: Tractor Driver, "
R/atA1aburvi11age, ;' ._ 'V V" »
H.B.Ha11i Taluk. ' _ :fi__ » PETITIONER
(By Sri.G. R. (}u:,£¥ur;ia{tn;5»,{ad;}f';
And: ' V V A
State, * _
By S'§2.1V:>~Insp.6%r§§toro*of Po1iCe.,.. A V
Kottur §'vo1iceve..Sta,.'AtiOn;.A """
Kottur, . _ RESPONDENT
';{By Sri. P.HR}otk§iioC1i';}£'CGP)
_ Criminal Revision Petition is fiied under S397 r/W S401
Cr."F'C',~~praying to~set--aside the judgment and conviction dated }6.1.2008
'1Vp'a:ssed'~.Lb3rV the Addl. -District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.1}! at
"-- "~,§-{ospet i13Cr1iA.No.113/2007 confirming the judgment and conviction
dajée_d'2'5.7';.20'07 in C.C.No.294/ 2006 passed by the Civii Judge (Jr.Dn) 86
I JMFCQTTHagaribomrnanahalli, and etc.
5%"
The petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the
following:
ORDER
This revision petition is by the accused seeking to set aside the
order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) 85 JMFC at
in C.C.No.294/2006 convicting and sentencing the accusediiof
1.1/3 279 and 304A of IPC, as well as the judgnient. and i T i
the Fast Track Court No.III, Hospet, in Cr1.A.f\7o. ‘~ , «. if
2. The petitioner has been sentenced if toundergo simple
imprisonment for six months andi_t'(3.,.pa3fif1neviofsV_P.sL3.OO0/ — for the offence
u/ s 304A and also sentenced to payi of -1″€~s..’~ for the offence
u/s 279 of IPC for one month,
modifying the orderggof the Magistrate sentencing the
accused to undergo iirnpriisonrinent for one year for the offence 11/ s
3O4AI:and..in1pri:sonrnent of iisijfrrionths for the offence u/ s 279 IPC and to
pay fine ‘]:Zs.1000/– respectively, for aforesaid offences.
, 3. ‘qH’earc1.’ ” V
4*’ Etuiisx stated that the petitioner being driver of the tractor
. =.gbe._arin’gi_Reg.No:K}ii35/T–2790, on 28.3.2006 around 1.30 p.rn. drove the
))f’/
tractor in a rash and negligent manner with the load of stones from
Mallanayakanahalli to Alabur, and at a place called Sangameshwara
Cross on the way between Ittigi to Kottur near the land of Banakar
Nagabasappa, the deceased by name Kote alias Koteppa who wasialliowed
to sit on the mudguard of the Engine of the said Tractor__fe~ll
over by the tractor and trailer, due to which the deceased”s”i;:ccumbedv_gto’ » so
injuries. The petitioner was charge sheetett.
after trial passed an order of conviction xa_n’d__sentenced i
As against the said order of: convictiong:.thezpet.iitioner ‘preferred an
appeal before the learned :.was dismissed by
reducin the order of im risonment”froi’n ear .to7six months for the
P ._ . . .. . .4
offence u/ s 304:}-X the sentence so far as fine is
concerned. Hence,*the petitioner is..i_n”‘tl*iis revision petition.
Theqievidence Rajappa is to the effect that the
deceased sitting–_on_the mudguard on his own and due to his
negligence” sustained injuries though the vehicle was
driven in a moderate speed. Even the persons who were travelling in the
Sand 6 also turned hostile. The learned Magistrate
_iintoV_icon’sideration the evidence of all the witnesses, formed an
the deceased Kote alias Koteppa was allowed to sit by the
‘W
petitioner on the bumper of the engine by his side. The tractor which
was loaded with stones was driven by the accused in a rash”‘manner
consequent to which the deceased fell down and run over l)y_Jthe*ltrac~ror.
The learned Magistrate held: that allowing the deceasedVt__o
mudguard portion of the engine of the tractor: ‘_arno}.=_ntsi._ to’-.anVi”actii’ if
negligence and rashness, which attracts theilllingredlientsgtot”
and 304A of IPC. The learned Magistrate “the
Mahazar, has observed that atthe spot”of..ac.cident the’re. humps on
account of road repair where the ‘have exercised care
and caution . The postnfiortcni cause of death
was due to which may be due to
blunt force applied.td”thef’le;ft._sider:of which may due to road
traffic accident;Th.erefore;:- ‘Magistrate held that the fact of
deceased run trailer is sufficiently proved and
estalglished, y,.}gt\ccordingl3r.::Vlthe learned Magistrate holding the petitioner
responsil3le« death of deceased having permitted the deceased to
{sit on thel”iniudg’iia.r§i’flpoirtion of the engine, formed an opinion that
p1etitiio_ner c.orn:rilitted offence of negligence and rashness which
of sections u/ s 279 and 304A of IPC. Accordingly, he
‘Chas c_lonv’ict’ed7and sentenced the accused.
W
6. In appeal the learned Fast Tract Court Judge on re-
appreciation of entire evidence has held that rrierely because eye
witnesses have turned hostile, it does not mean that rash ggand,iVneig1iigent
act of the accused is not proved. Having noticed that the
is a straight road with humps on which the “accused d:rovei._tlie’–.tractori T
negligently in great speed as a result of whiiichideiceasedriifell
succumbed to injuries instantaneouslygvlyithe learned Judge
held that by allowing the deceased z to sigti’o’11..’humper’ by his side, the
accused has committed offence ofiiras’hn’es.i3 negligence. Accordingly,
the learned appellate modified’ the ofi-learned Magistrate.
7. The learned the petitioner in support
of his subrnissioinisi,i_i of Ori.ssa High Court
reported in 19€lG in the case of Penn Vs. State,
wherein the deceased” tractor slowly and carefully and
that.’jthe».tra(:tor had=c.overed”‘on’liy 18 miles in 3 hours and accused was
driving ‘the traetor._tinith_e “night only on the instructions of his immediate
boss, the dcceased.,i’v§:hAo had taken a seat in the tractor i.n a precarious
.p.ositi4on__withoutv caring for the risk and consequences of the same and
mindful of the expected jolts and bumps of the tractor
iwhjiile_i”:nov;ing on the said road, held that no criminal rashness or
W’
negligence could be attributed to the accused to hold him guilty u /s 297
and 304–A of the Penal Code. He submits that in the case on hand, as
observed by the Sessions Court, from the evidence on recordhwhat is
being noticed is that at the spot of the accident there were The
deceased was sitting on the mudguard on his own initial”precaI.’ioiJ.,s
position without caring for the risk and consequences*’of:the”~same and
without being mindful of the expected jolts’: andLbulrnpis..lofilthettractor l’
while moving on the said road and there. is contributory’negligegnce on
the part of the deceased also. Further abstence of eye witnesses
supporting the case of the pros._ec’1.1tion, :the~«._pe_ititi.oner cannot be held
guilty of the aforesaid offences.
8. As seen ‘evidence onwrecord, the driver has driven
the tractor loadeidtwith ‘storiesiiira._fs~pe’ed and rashness on the humps,
consequent to .which'”‘th_:e d.e’ceasediwho was sitting on the bumper fell
down.’ as–obse.rvedsV.byvi– the coiurtsvbelow. The evidence of eye–witnesses as
is elicited ‘in_ tl1.eii%.cr’oVss–‘cxarnination is, that the vehicle was moving in
li.r,j:i’od»erate speed. _ ,lBt_e7:that as it may, admittedly, the petitioner has
the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act by allowing the deceased to
the mtid_.guard by his side, which is a rash and negligent act of the
dri_ver’.'”l In such circumstances, the driver of tractor was expected to
\></
exercise due care in not allowing any person to sit on the bumper by his
side. In the circumstances, opinion formed by both the courts beiow
cannot be found fauit with. Moreover, speed is no.t__ithVe'icriteria.
Whether the vehicle was driven fast or slow but the't«i.possibViiiity~
person sitting on the bumper falling down Wiili be.r_nore,; 'at a'
piace where there are humps. Even contribtitory "the
deceased petitioner cannot be exonerate–di"'~
9. in the circurnstanc.esp;– the rev”i’sion”«petition is dismissed.
Send back the records.
3UDGE
Sub/