§ C1111? 1205l’2G06
IN THE HIGH COURT’ OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21″‘ DAY OF JU LY 2%?
BEFORE
THE E-iOl\i’BLE MR.JUS’I’ICE A.s.PAcHrI.AP£j-5&3-“LI%*5~ H
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITEON
BETWEEN
Sri. Mahadevaswamy
S/o Rajaiah
Aged about 32 yams
DodraipctaP0s1: ‘ _ «_
Chamarajanagar. _”v~…’;’~..PE’I’ITiGHER]S
(Sn: x.v;’v;g§§§ A{:ii§.;–
AND 1 ” %
The State V
Reprtésented by AA!-Iblenarsipuxa
….. ..
“Ki91énar5ipmv}_. RESFONDENTI S
HCGP.)
it-iii
Criminal Revision Petitim is fim under Secficrn 397
4 ” $3.133 401 Cr.P.C to set asfic the 3*:-ailment and sentence passed
‘by the JMFC, Hoicnarasipur in (:0 No. 70212001 dated
__ °li3′.’i’;A2fl03 and the oztier dated 24.5.66 passed by the Fri. S.J.,
in Cr3..A. No. 5/2003.
This Criminal Revision Petitixm ceming on fer hearing,
this day, the Court, made the frxliowingz
2 CILRP I205/2906
ORBER
The petitioner has chaflenged his
sentrznce for the offence punishable b
and 338 {PC on a trial held by :a£1d ”
confirmed in appeal before thcT’S;cssi1§11s”C’om’L v”V*AA 2 u
2. The facts mlcvgmt fo:V_t1i§fi’vpurposé’of–§evision are
as under: V ‘4 V
The petitioncr h§:i*€i31: ;i:§ before the Trial
Court and at about 8.15 am,
when ; resident of Doddahalli Village had
come “after his work at that place was
mctmjsing £5 hilafivcdplacc in the KSRTC bus bearing
” V’ -R¢ga§j’u~.;a;uon: .Np.xA;b9′ ‘F 2233, it is alleged that the dfivcr of the
._bxu_s and negligent manner and at about 9.00
a.Ama , on ‘Bray, inbetween Hassan and Mysore, near the
forest on the cuxvc, the driver was not able to comma! the
érnd thereby the bus capsized on the Eefi: side of the cmve.
A 3s many as 17 to 19 persons sustained injmtics in the accident
and it is themafier that the complainant came to the hospiial
for the purpose of tzvcatmcnt and meanwhile. I5-“W.17 received the
information of the accident and Went to the hospital and
oi
3 CILRP 120513006
recorded the complaint of PW .1 as per Ex.P.1 and
the said complaint and sent the FIR to the Magis1:£§t£:§ _
3. He visited the scene of ‘-nee ;
of the attesting Witnesses, held
seized the bus bearing
recorded the statement the sketch of
the scene of oecuxrcncé’ am he arrested the:
accused. He the injured from
the Doct<)r§.i2;*V;A§"»vg)_'c;'_::»::l;'.'.;3_<s;<!'%'ff. Exs.P.7 and R8.
Affcr he collected the report
Inspector and CW.30 aficr the
investigafir)f1,= tiixé sheet against the accused.
the prosecution examined Pws. I to
' guidance got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to
" $§:é{cmcnt of the accused was necoxtlcd under
(3r.P.C. He has taken. the écfence of total dcmal'
not led any evidence, but got marked Exs.D.1 and D2,
:5: ébnnadicfions in the statement of PWS. 7 and 10. The Trial
' on apprcciafion of the material on mcond, convicted the
petitioner fear the offence under Sections 2'?'9, 337' am 338 of
IPC and ordered to undergo imprisonment for three months for
ac':
4 CIri.RP l205f20€)6
the offence under Sections 27 9 and 338 IPC and _4o;§eni21onth
imprisonment for the ofience under Section 337
by ‘the conviction and the sentence, fie pmferxai
the said appeal came to be dismiseed iby ”
the concurrent findings of his
this Court in revision. ‘ H V a
5. I have heart} the petitioner and
also the High points that arise
for my A ”
i_. —- and older of conviction of
V n ‘ tile ofience under Sections 279,
A and the sentence thereon as
in eximinal appeal are illegal and
order?
‘ is the contention of the learned counsel for the
A X1′ ” ijeiiiioner that there is no matextia}. on record to prove the rash
égnd negligent driving of the bus and that as the accident
occurred in the curve, the petitioner to avoid the accident with
the motor Cycle had to take his vehicle towattis the extreme left
and in the efibrt, the vehicle capsized and therefore, he submits
$4
S Cfl.RP 120519006
that there is no such rash or negligent act to atttmt the
provisions of Sections 279, 33′? and 338 IPC. It is also his
contention that none of the witnesses have spoken to the speed
of the vehicle and there is no matefial on record __rash
and negligent driving and in the ci1eumstance$;”he_’
that the judgment and orders of the Court flag»
petitioner are illegal an pexverse. It t’
that for the first time, the pefitioner’
that he has a large in the
circumstances, he subeiits tetexte; benefit ef probation
and of the bonds. Per contxa,
the Pleader has supported the
ixnpegned jfidgaient atigdtbitiexs, ofthe Court: behow.
fieve semtmzze’ ‘ d the evidence led by the prosecution
an’e1,_ae gcéuments admitted in the em ence. ex..m2 is
the”‘-skeiehveitft the seem: of oecurxenee and it reveais that the
ofvfiihe accident is Hassa:n—-MysoIe road and then: is a curve
bus whieh’€%*capsi2ed has been S})0W’I1 on the
% ….e;d:reme left side efthe row. There is 20 feet tarrem fl also
rough road on both the sides and the vehicle was fimnd fallen
at a distance of about 20 feet {item the spot of the accident.
mi
6 CILRP 12(}5f’2006
The circumstances at the spot as shown 12
reveal that the accident occuned at the time
was taking the vehicle in the curve and
what reason the vehicle capsized file 7,
driver. When it is the duty of dfivg%9’to
the road and when it is found on thfi
12:’: side the rash and p:fi§i11i#:d from the
circumstances on the :v’»»p:i~i11ciplc of res ipsa
Ioquitur. So f;ar§ .’the éenoemcd, PW.17 in
his of the map and they
are Ex.P.5.
by the Motor Vehicle
Inspesrmr Keport Ex.P.16 was secured and it
damage to the bus and the Motor
.__ has opined that the accident was not due to
a’11}§:i11cchA.a–:n’ ggj.~.a= defect.
is in the context of the cimumstances and the report
{#16 of the Motor Vehicle Inspector that the evidence led by
pmsecuticn has to be looked into.
M
7 CIIRP 30512006
10. PWs.1 to 10 and 12 are the persons who were
travelling in the bus at the time of the accident and have
sustained injmies. The injmy certificates are at
Exs.P.13 to P30 and Exs. 10.7 and R8. Amongét
F’V\fs.’?’, 9 and 10 have sustained gievofus the zeét.
have suffered simple inj1:me’ s. A .
the Doctor and he has spoken.
sufiered by the witnesses. of thee
Wimesses except PWs;’I?«,._..V9 _a1e,d have not
stated about the speed (117 tlhieieveejele Let of the accident
but ‘s§§§tsV.:’_’the éefitioner who was driving the
vehicle while he was taking the
curve. and the bile Véepsized on the left side of the mad.
of {‘i:e”‘evidence of the injured PWs.7, 9 and 10
we “*1 théit has was driven in h1gh’ speed. The witnesses
speed of the vehicle was in between 60 to 70
Inns] this evidence of the witnesses reveal that the
A j?j”:aA;c;ei<1ent occuned While the driver was taking the curve and
that he hamri no (20:11:11)! over the vehkle and therefoze the bus
"capsized on the left side. Though there is a suggestion that to
avoid a hit to the motor cycle, which was coming from the
opposite direction, he had to take the vehicle on the iefi side,
54
8 CILRP 1205:2006
but some of the witnesses have denim the said suggesfipn. If
really, the vehicle was coming from the opposite if
the rider of the motor cycle was neglige11t,””‘.g:i:efij;::i’1fie}g’g,e’
petitioner could have lodged a :§e’11’m{3-mr’ T. AV
cyclist.
1 1. Furthermore, the ef’ peeifioncr was
recorded under 13 _exce;H)tVAdcnying the
incriminating ciI_’cum$ta.n,e_es record by the
pmseeution,_V}f§e’ the vehicle capsized
on the side. .91″ within his knowledge
and i1;,’…’eV;v;’;v’a4:1verse infexence eouid be
drawn Section 106 of the indian
Evidesce ._:VInv.£heA.eifé£1mstanees, the defence put forth by
‘ V’ ..eann<5t"fieV accepted and takah g into oonsiieration
.__ the that arises from the circumstances at the spot
of the eye witnes-ms, a safe conclusion could
be axfiveii at holding that the petitioner was rash and negligent
":–? iaipejiving the bus. The Trial Court and also the first appellain
iiiourt have taken into oensideraijon this evidence and have
cosine to a right conclusion. I do not find any iiiegality in the
M;
9 CILRP 1205v”2{)G6
conviction of the petitioner for the offence under .279,
337 and 338 IPC.
12. The petiti-ancr was aged:32′ f. z
accident. The counsel submits Ivis
minor children and he has that
family members and sentence
of imprisonment, he ‘_ the family has to
suficr all along He ought
to have bC(?Ii’ and could have
1~cducc§:l.. taccidcnt could have been
avoidetif negligent act, as many as 19
pcrsonsté tfitfrxe in addition, the KSRTC bus
sustfiaiixed sev¢?m._damage.
1 if the petitioner is canfincd, he will loge the
same time, if he is ordered to pay the
corttfscxiaafififn, he can continue in service’ , Iook after his famfly
‘V ” . an*c:.;as§; compensate the injured and also the KSRTC. 1: is the
oficncc and therefem tahng into considcxation these
Vt htvtéizrzumstances, I am of the opi1:11ca’ 1:: that it is a tit case wherein”
the benefit of probation has tn be extended cfnecting the
petitioner to pay the compensation. As many as 16 pcmons
%%–\
10 CILRP 12032006
have sustained simple injuries like abrasions and <;x$x1t u§ions
Whereas PWs.3, 7, 9 and 10 have sustained
In the circumstances, I think it wouid be
award compensation of Rs.2,OOO/1;-_V "
have sustained simple
persons who have sustained xV-
towards the damage to the petitioner
has to pay the the injured and
also to the . ~ vficéiiétiexafion these an
in afiirmative and
partly jfiéss the ibllowingz
u’. A % wMV “ORDER
A. — The I£::%i$ian ‘is in part afirming the convllctzion of
” ” £’,céiijom;r. ‘”ié’ <V)xdercd to be relcased on probation on
bond for Rs.5,000/ ~ with one surety in
period of three years on probafion of good
cond1i:;t§'i-He is ozdcxw to pay the compensation of Rs.82,000/ –
"ii three months from this date. ()1: deposit of thc
' rfompcnsation amount, an amount of Rs.2,0G0/- each shail be
paid to §PWs.1 £06 and 8 and CWs.9 to 16 and CWJ8 and an
amount of I52s.S,{)O0/- shall he paid to PW's.7, 9 and 16. The
04
11 Cti.RP 126532006
amount of Rs.35,000/- shall be paid to the Managing
KSR”I'(Z2, towards the damages of the vehicle. In
payment of the compensafion, the ,c–:~,.
simpie imprisonment for a A 2853»; .:§3;ionths,L__u « i.’I’:11c ”
conviction of the petitioner shallfiot énjnc in thfi ;v:a§u.y: of
of the pciritioncr. /_
Judge
JL