Maruthi Singada S/O … vs State By Yelawala Police on 15 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Maruthi Singada S/O … vs State By Yelawala Police on 15 October, 2009
Author: Jawad Rahim
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*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *