, 1.,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARHATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8"' DAY OF JUNE. 2008
BEFORE
THE HON'8LE MRJUSTICE SUBHASI-I BAD!
CRIMINAL REVISEON PEETITION NO2038/2006
BETWEEN:
Sxti Mufihy @ Naxshima Murthy, V b
53/0 Sri Eraiah,
Major, Resident of Ammasandra,
'I'un1kurDistri.ct. 2
. .. 1?'=H..'E"If§'I(:J_V1\VIVVER
(By Sri.N.Srinivas, " V' I V
. . . . ..
State by
Salya Po1i<Ac':€VSAtatioz1,_ ' a T» V'
é , - RESPONDENT
V Szifiqxinappa, HCGP)
_iz'hi$"t3r:';R?~ 5%s.%..51¢,~d U/S.397 & 401 of Cr.F'.C. praying to
set asidefitlym c$1::{é::1j céfvéonviction and sentence dated 23.9.2003
'-passed by 1113 " ~--,Ci.J. (Jr.Dn.) 55 JMFQ, K.F<'.NagaI, in
C.{;t.No. 114/2€)0O~énei also the order passed by the 19.0., F'l'C--I,
~ ..1M3f.§§017e in CI'}.A.lN0. 140] 2003 dated 29.3.2006.
'revision petition coming on for admission this day,
CO'uI'f'made the following:
ORDER
This revision petition is directed against the conviction
judgment and oxder of sentence in C.C1.No.l}4]2000
23.9.2003 confirmed in Crl.A.No.140/2003 dated 29.3′.2*dd5}cts’ A.
2. K.R.Nagar police charge sheeted the’ ‘ace{1se-ii’:
offence punishable under sections 279, dsttteotddp if
egw section 134A and 134s of the Isdssgx Mess seseaesset.
3. Case cf the pm-secutiozil is ‘ofi”-2.1.200%-..a.tvV§about
3. 15 13.111. at Suggsnahally gate,’ the was the driver
of the lorry atfasiivzand negligent manner
towards Bhertjr-a of which, the lo-my turn
turtle and the h1uishsndVef_P¥V2’1:§%ho suffemd severe injuxies died
the hcsp::a;c_tsed ottie1’s got injured.
‘ eci as many as 14 Witnesses as PW}
PW g9t’ee;{d:’iced documents Exs.P1 to P1 1.
2?yv1t:s’tthe injured and is wife of the deceased. She has
*§V1at,”«the accused was driving the vehicle very fast and as
tvalffesuittiof which, the suspension broke. Further stated that, she
‘her husband and others sustained injuries. She admitted
that, there were pat holes on the road. PW2 is the eyewitness
who has stated that, the iony broke down on the let’: side of the
road and she saw the accident and aiso alleged that, the
accused was driving the vehicle vezy fast. PW3 is also
eyewitness. He also stated that, the accused had driven §i.he«’ ‘4
veiy fast and admitted that, the road has gm holes… ‘;.:;5.jjti1e T
another eyewitness. He also states that, the aoeased i§s%as.:dri’ar{::1iiVo_ T
the lorry in a high speed. FW7 areiiithe otiier ‘V
persons in the iorxy. On the basis ‘ofvjthe stateirieai ofitiiese
witnesses, the Mahazar, panoiiant am_.f1iiet1ier théveiieiiidence
of PW10~ the Motor Vehicle Inspeofofiffiie convicted
the accused for the s-aidaoffenee. 3:
6. The Vxloéveri on reappreciation of the
evidence the.saidi’;:o1i§icfion judgment and the order
of se:”.:_tenoe;:~ ; I
for the petitioner submits that, none of
‘*-.the as to the rash and negligent driving of
accused. All that the witnesses saying is that,
had driven the iony in a speed. He also submitted
ii the Motor Vehicle Inspector has stated that, the
V V would occur on account of the break of the suspension
admitted that, it may happen. He also submitted that, it has
is
also come in the evidence that, there were pot holes and the
holes had resuited in the break of suspension and
ultimately resuited in lorry turning upside clown i V’
be attributed to the rash and negligent d1’iv§11’g–0f V
petitioner.
8. Learned Government i31eadeiii”snib¥eitte{1 ;9’\iV§. to
4, PWS.”/’ and 8 am the eyev:itnesses.i”§fiei:, that,
these eyewitnesses have stated thet, driven in a
high speed and seppertedthe :_j_ud,;g:v.i1’ents Courts.
9. and Pwsxz and 8
being the -said lorry, they have only
stated that theiicriy sheed, but nobody has stated
that, it We.s;;di:’iven eihdiiinegiigent manner and it is not a
of 01′ the driver going and dashing
but the lorry mm turtle and the Motor
iiiiiifehicle Iixspeetori stated that, this type of accident would
i it it on of break down of the suspension.
— into the evidence of PW10 and the other
i Witnesses and the evidence on record, it does not prove the case
thief rash and negligent driving by the accused. Both the Courts
have relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and held that, these
1
L201}
r”32»= ‘, –
Wimesses have stated that the accused was driving the lorry iria
great speeé. In my opinion, only speeé does not make o11.tH_;l ..,,
of rash and negligent driving, unless the witnesses H
the lorry was dxiven in a rash and neg]ige:.:itmi11z113;1er1&” i1frcfspcctivé.V
of the speed. The matcxial collected by is.
sufficicnt to oonvict the accused. Tile as
Lower Appellate Court have failgd t11el:lle%’id.e:;1i:e on
reccrd including the sketch of head
on collusion, but ‘fl.’1e.v’?€::}’«;l-i(_:’i,e 2/$150 come in
the evidence that,€.tl:.iEr§ llblgs it is possible
that. it may ‘b_v£’:’c;.«it;ss: of suspension.
11. H{:zt1llC:-ggthils is allewed. The judgment
of co11viection_ anti lllordverpf stinfciice in C.C.No.114/ 2000 dated
23′}9;20e:é.j’£m;5$1u1¢d ‘Cr};A.No.140/2003 dated 29.3.2006 is
“:§mot”111t deposited be refilndcd to the
V AA..a2cused; V
Igsiqe
Sd/-i