IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15?" DAY.OF OCTOBER 2Q'O§'E._, BEFORE _ THE HON'BLE MR.3USTICE JAWAD r2?_§HITMV., H CRIMINAL REVISION PETI_TI.O_N NO'.'i'O'2éI;'2'O'O8..V BETWEEN: MARUTHI SINGADA, S/O CHANDUSINGADA, AGED 33 YEARS, . KSRTC BUS DRIVER,___ » A R/O AT KSRTC GUEST' HOU'S_E';» MADIKERI CITY. f V. V. i * ;--- ; _ _ _ .;. «RETITIONER (BY SRI M.Y'.SIf:;EENIvASA'N, A'Dv';--)' 'R AND: STATE B'(1Y'AEvi;A3[\(Ai./3' .,TRO,,LICE, A A '' .,_RESPONDENT (BY SRI.R§§JA. SU(BRAMAENYA BHAT, HCGP) ,._,"fHIS'CA'RIi\2----I!\3AL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 4,397 "TR,'w~T..,4o1 Cr.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ' J"UDGvM'ENT,DATED 09.07.2008 IN CRL.A.E\30.220/2007 ON THE "FI"L.E_ O'F="'THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSION 'JU'DGE,"'MYSORE AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATE..j'2'3.0B.2007 IN C.C.NO.1486/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE» 3M_EC (II COURT), MYSORE. "THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE E FOLLOWING: $1» ='}*Eat/' '-/' O R D E R
The convicted accused is in revision against the
judgment in Cri.A.No.220/2007 dated 9.7.2009 onthe fiie
of the III Additionai District and Sessions Jujjd.g’4eA,V.t’iv’ivs:o’re,
confirming the judgment in CC
25.6.2007 convicting the pe%:;’itjiAor’_1ei’..V for-I” t.h:e.gg.dtreVVn¢’es 7
punishabie under Sections 279 and33.7 of ” 3′ V
2. Heard regarding adrrieission. V V.
3. As seen frointhe tnhepetitvivoner is aileged
to a@KiS!?:t:T(VZ;’.’bushearing Regn.No.19/F~1723 in
a rashuand while driving towards Mysore.
onf19.9.3’2″00s,».ttreis’ane§i’e’ged, at 3.45 PM, the bus reached
Atienjgaidevargukoooai”jviliage within the limits of Yeiwala
The petitioner was driving at high speed in
negligent manner and iost control. The bus hit
against PW.3 Parvathamma, consequent to which she feii
suffering injuries to her head, shouider and other
__5parts of her body. Report in this regard was submitted at
the jurisdictional Police Station, who after investigation
filed a final report indicting the petitioner for the offences
punishahie under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC.
_,»:?s.,ti/’
4. The accused pleaded not guilty and was put to
trial, during which the prosecution reiied on the evidence
of 7 witnesses and 8 documents. Considering the
incriminating aspects spoken to by witnesses, he was
found guilty against which he was in Crimi_na_l”–RAp’pleal
before the Appellate Court in Appeal No.2f:fo/2o1oii?’;’
reiterated the piea of innoce5n’ce””and, t;rEed’«.to”–§asten T V
actionable negligence on the herseifi.vihichltlie
Appellate Court found was”i~vonvtenat.3ieg_and:”_:dis.rniss’ed the
appeal. Against vboth irnpug.neucl”–.judgnients. he is in
revision.
VS. = would contend that the
prosecution _:Vevi.d..enc’e through PWs.1,2 and 3 itself shows,
A at..the’iw.sp’o.t wherethe accident occurred, a tree had fallen
a_.nd- removed. PW.3 Parvathamma unmindful
of4:V%the..t:r’a,i’fi.c, crossed the road and by her own act of
A negl’ige*nce, possibly she must have fell down suffering
‘einjjllgries. He submits that there is no collision between the
bus and the victim.
6. Secondly, he would contend even if we accept the
statements of witnesses, they speak only of the occurrence
2 5′:
5/ ‘
of the accident, but do not describe how it happened.
They are totally silent as to how the accident occurred and
spokfifi nothing about the alleged rashness and vneg_l’ig.ence
in driving. He would further submit that Pi/_\g”;’E:
of the bus has also given a clear evidence..t.h’a.tthiere is no
rashness of the driving of the f;th–e ‘:pe’titiorie’r:,: ‘
this ground, he seeks acc;u.itta|.
7. Per contra, learnedVR”fiov’ernmlentxiPleallder Sri.Raja
Subramanya Bhat, lias:«–s’ut-ilposrtedthe’«reasons”assigned by
the Courts below to co.nvic.t
what is urged, I have examined
the records. _
is 13. Firslti-yyiivt is to be noticed that PWs.1 and 2 are the
and they have stated of having seen the
which PW.3 Parvathamma said to have
su”ffer’=ed”i’njuries. Each of them say a tree had fallen at
is * the place where the accident has occurred and it was being
removed. It is also not in dispute that the situs where the
“accident has occurred is a road within the territory of
Municipal limits of Mysore and one can accept reasonable
traffic and movement of people. Undoubtediy, the driver
zfk-£9
, /. /,
i__/’
was conscious or must have noticed that there was
obstruction of the road due to fail of a tree and it was
incumbent upon him to have taken all possible pvrxecautions
to controi the vehicle. Instead, the evidence’«sho_ws,.Vui:e
proceeded trying to negotiate the obstructed’:”.sp’o:t and:
against the obstruction. Suchrfactsézfuhdoubtiediysaire,in ‘
contravention of Section 18-{of i~é/i’oto’i’ Vehic’ie&s.,A.ct,’_i’;
which reads thus;
” Driving dangerou;sly,V- . ” » _
Whoever drives a ‘tn,1_ot0r vel:ric’ie’.fi’V’at’_’.a speed or
in a manner da’nfge_ro’us« to the public,
trefierd thecircumstances of the
7,case “nature, condition and use of
tiiepilace. vehicle is driven and the
. ., amobnt of.v”tra’ffic”‘$which actually is at the time
which reasonably be expected to be in
..,A’ti2e’«..Apia_ce, shall be punishable for the first
it imprisonment for a term which
extend to six months or with fine which
~~ vmay extend to one thousand rupees, and for
any second or subsequent offence if committed
within three years of the commission of a
previous similar offence with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to two years, or with
fine which may extend to two thousand
rupees, or with both.
10. Fortunately, the victim has suffered injuries as
otherwise the effect would have been fatal. It s4i.sVV_ifo_:ri~.this
reason we expect atleast the drivers of the.$tatie’jowr.iedi_s
Corporation to be conscious of “the safetyi:’_of'”=life_
property, unlike any private tran’spo:2fttotperators w’iie.re”ttt%f.e
main object would be profiitipmaking’.-..ll\ihenVthejrS.tate3
Transport Corporation run for theberiefit of the
commuters i.e. citizen’szV:anyd”l-.igt to ensure safety
of the passengers asiweil,::be’c’a.usex.p*rofi.t~”making cannot be
its motive; a4|f$Q_{*n:oti.§yé§i.”‘inithe recent Past that
reckleslsgy Vtofithe Corporation owned
buses.’ of iife and injuries to several
personsIx_’_4 Safety4V.tbse’ing.»s.iiparamount consideration is given
to{the~ wind’s”~..an_d therefore no iiberal approach can be
must also be observed that the Corporation
AA ownedtbuses are to ply invariably within the city limits for
purpose of transport of the commuters and therefore
precautions of their safety is a must. In the instant case,
when we keep this in mind and examine the evidence on
record the bus has entered the territorial limits of Mysore
and the driver was negotiating a road which was not
1/
narrow but sufficient wide. There was a road obstruction
due to fall of a tree and he was expected to4…bie..,_:’id,ore
cautious. It is not only he failed to take
appears to have driven rashly,_despite_rsuch’_~Ob’str-ucti,on’~at
ignoring the movement of persons.j”sii5’hat»._h’as”resul.teti_i’n
the accident in question. ”:__’The learned J’u’dg.e..,_,hwe|..d
guilty of culpable negligen_cue’.».,_A.sv far sentence is
concerned, still the p’etitioner{.gis satisfied. As far as
the evidence _of__the;”Cor1duc’to.r,__i’s..”co.ni:’e’rned, it is quiet
obvious hostile tomhelp his colleague.
hausvlrelied on the decision of this
Courtin the case_ljV~of’DiJi=_gappa vs. The State of Karnataka
reported ll’:,_:IL,Q..”2t708′”‘.l<AR 3759, wherein a co-ordinate
– A Esench”:of”l-this Cllourtvconsidering the occurrence of accident
in’th_é’»..ciilc’uinj”stances like in this case and on the facts of
that c~as:e:’..-nloticed the complainant had not described the
Ag alleged’ rashness in driving and acquitted the accused. In
regard all that can be observed is, the conclusion of
the learned Judge in that case is based, on and confined to
the facts of that, but in the instant case the facts are not
so. In the instant case, the fact that there was
obstruction on the road and despite such obstruction for
e’: -‘>
3″‘
free fiow of traffic, the accused proceeded without
checking his speed. It is for this reason, I have_4t.alke_:n~..the
view that it amounts to contravention of -the
M.V Act and thus the decision cited t%does”novt–fapp’:yto
facts.
13. In the resuitant po’s.iti’on, I am: that the
triai Court and Ap;:iIe¥_|ate’Vliiifiosttjeritii”haveifivexarnined the
evidence in correct?’ needs no
interference;”:”£…:ii’– A it it
397 Cr.P.C and -as no
or grounds worthy of
acceptanc-e.’ oetition is iiable to be rejected.
_. AccordV_i’ng.i.y–, iAt’.is”rejected.
Scyt-
Eudgg
mv*