{"id":34966,"date":"2008-11-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008"},"modified":"2016-11-19T16:02:42","modified_gmt":"2016-11-19T10:32:42","slug":"pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Pyarijan S\/O Mohamed Hussain vs The State By The Police … on 17 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Pyarijan S\/O Mohamed Hussain vs The State By The Police … on 17 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Jawad Rahim<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 17\" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAwAD \n\nCR\u00a3_.R.P. NO. 1617 OF 2006 .__f  \nBETWEEN:  I -\n\n1 PYARIJAN S\/O MOHAMED HUSSAIN_\nAGED 29 YEARS, DRIVERI   , i  ,\n\nR\/O CHOWLAHIRIYUR   \" -_ .\nKADURTALUK, CHIKMAGALOR DISTRICT.' , \n~  \"   P'E'TfTIONER\n\n(BY MR S.G.BHAGAvAN',Yv.ADv.)  =\n\n1 THE STATE BY  SOBAAINSRECTOR\nTRAFFIC,PO1.ICE,_STATION,   \nSHIMQGA '  I \n\nV RESPONDENT\n,,.,{\u00a7RI RAIA   MANYA B HAT, HCG P)\n\n THIS PE\"FI\u00abT.I.QN IS FILED U\/S.397 R\/w 401 CR.P.C BY\n\nA  THE ADVO~CATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS\ng,HO,N'EBLEvI:OORT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE\n\nJ..UD'GM'E,NT,\"'&-=' ORDER DTD. 19.8.04 PASSED BY THE II\n\n\"ADDL.,A*--\"IjjC,\u00a7'., (JR.DN.) & 3MFc., SHIMOGA, IN\n\nC:\u00ab.C.N__O.'1,7352\/01 AND THE JUDGMENT & ORDER DTD.\n29.6.06 PASSED BY P0,, FTC-I, SHIFVEOGA, IN\n\n , <;RL.A_.NO.42\/04, ETC.,\n\nTHIS. PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING\n\n"";rHIS DAY THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:~\n\n\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Convicted accused is in revision under Section 397
\nCr.P.C. against the judgement in Crl. A. No. 42\/ZQO4 dated
\n29–O6–2006 on the file of the learned Judge,v..i%a.\u00a7t~i.jrack<\/p>\n
Court, Shimoga confirming the conviction <\/p>\n
for the offence punishable under g_Sect_io’n'”2:73’V”an’d,V <\/p>\n
IPC, by the judgement in C.C. lxlo.  offs ”<\/p>\n
the learned 11 Addl. Civil Judge (Jr’.”DV:vP..)’ at3ivig’rc.,.t,s3himo–g:a,
\ndated 19–08–2004. L’ J i  J\n<\/p>\n
2. Heard V  _ “.leaaj_mued–_’gg.:s’e.nior counsel Mr.<\/p>\n
S.G.:vB’h’ag’avan  f:’p.etitione’r’V’— accused and learned
\nGover–nrnaent  Subramanya Bhat appearing
\nfor .r_esponde_’nt .+’.’StAate}'”‘<\/p>\n
  2 Thieimaterial accusation on the basis of which<\/p>\n
thep:etViAtiori\u00bber_:..was arraigned, tried and ultimately convicted<\/p>\n
‘AEJ34:\/’V%the.  judgement are:\n<\/p>\n
i is  VVVThe petitioner — accused is admittedly a professional<\/p>\n
:7-:d”ri’ver of a passenger bus and was employed by<\/p>\n
A\\ .\n<\/p>\n
if 55\/
\nJ -\\
\nif<\/p>\n
under Section 304–A IPC was confirmed. Against both these
\nconcurrent finding the convicted accused is in revision.\n<\/p>\n
7. The learned senior counsel Sri S.G….Vv_iBiha.gavan<\/p>\n
took me through the evidence, which accord_i_h_gn’to5_’hg~iii~f; i-isftoo<\/p>\n
feeble to establish the charge ofmnegIig.e’n’cei:tVo<\/p>\n
accused for the offence punishable under\u00e9sectijon’3C4′–f:,r_IAPC.””<\/p>\n
In this regard it was urged that
\nare cited by the prosecuyt:i_ori’..:_a–s__\u00bb eye \u00ab–VV:wi’tAnVesses to the
\naccident, in unequivocal_teV_rm.s:Vfa’d’rri’iAt:’atone point or other
\nduring Cl’0SS-W”\/)V(\u00a7|’]’1i1n’Ei”L’l:\ufb01)r;lV’ ‘could saw what
\n Qicczurreclji.”‘i\u00a7iy”‘a’ttention was drawn to
\ncertain –arisw’e~r’s:-..:gi~1>e’ii.i:l3*’;r’these witnesses, which in itself
\nshows \u00abthat they  the place of occurrence and on<\/p>\n
heariyng huelnfcrv, they rescued the victim. It is urged<\/p>\n
.’ that .tAhAree:V’pe__rsons, PW1 to PW3 cited as eye witnesses by<\/p>\n
 ct’r.E,Vro\u00e9ecuttion had not witnessed the actual occurrence.<\/p>\n
”  The learned counsel would further contend that<\/p>\n
  place of occurrence, topography of the area and other<\/p>\n
__places show that driver could not have driven bus at high or<\/p>\n
 I
\nxvi<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
uncontroliable speed or in reckless manner. Therefore, the
\nburden on the prosecution was more to establish that the
\naccused was driving the vehicle in a rash and___neg|igent
\nmanner and such rashness and negligencey,:is.l_V*’gross<\/p>\n
negligence’ to bring home the guilt.\n<\/p>\n
9. A distinction was  drawn  .4_culr;labVle <\/p>\n
negligence and actionable neg\ufb01gence in’-civiyl i.|aw~.._.lAl”l–:The ” J<\/p>\n
learned counsel for petitioVrie:r”=sough’t citatiov-na’i.._:s’u’pp’ort frorn<\/p>\n
the following decisions:  _
\n(1) SARWAR ..ig(“FylA|\\\u00a3-‘_ v\u00a7;,’STAfE’E, or ANDHRA
\nPRADESH, reported’ina.AIFf; 1_96.E5f’\u00bblA’P–290;<\/p>\n
 (2) _1iA’G.o~V:s’H \u00bbg’ci{ANoE’R vs STATE or DELHI,
\nVrieportedy iii:_+’XIR\u00ab..19.?3–~ SC 2127; and<\/p>\n
_ _ (3)\u00b0J.A_COBi-.MAA.TH’EnW vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND
\nAi\\lOTi~’iE..RA reported in AIR 2005 SC 3180.<\/p>\n
;,f,{O._””=.__Firstly, it was urged that in similar case there<\/p>\n
  basil  alficlonsistent view of Apex Court foliowed by the<\/p>\n
High .-__Court,S that when the charge is under Section 304–A<\/p>\n
..IFfC,*=the prosecution cannot be contend with only<\/p>\n
“”._Vva’c–c:usation, it had to discharge the burden by placing<\/p>\n
clinching evidence of gross negligence on the part of the<\/p>\n
accused.\n<\/p>\n
11. In the first decision cited supra in_,vth,e\u00ab._,lcase of<\/p>\n
SARVAR KHAN, the Apex Court took note of,i–Ehe’p’7biservetio.n<\/p>\n
of the trial court, which reads as_,fo.ll,ows:_-“ll” <\/p>\n
“A person driving a motor’:.car’_”is’iunder ,3 du.r\u00a73,-._’*1:,’
\nto control that car; he is prima facie.5′.g.ui’i’ty of ”
\nnegligence if the car’*~.,leave’s the ‘roa\u00abd”*v–ia.nd
\ndashes headlong into”a._tree an’d._it*is for the
\nperson driving the,_.__.c’a.r ‘=.._1;o e”xp.|,ain,’ the
\ncircumstances ‘_u~n,_der\u00ab’i w_hich the car came to
\nleave the road.” iTho’s_e1-ci.rcumst’a–n_ces may be
\nbeyond control, and mayiex\u00abcui’p~ate.’–~him, but in
\nthe absenyce oi””stir)’h ‘ci.rt’cumsta,nv’ces the fact
\nthat ;thet..,.Car “left ‘the* ,r’o–ad.__..iS evidence of<\/p>\n
  cello n  rt .’ofV’the d river.\n<\/p>\n
From, thi.sVob-serv_a’tion the learned Magistrate
\ninferred that ‘t_hei..b”urden of proof had shifted to
\n the ‘petitioner to prove under what
\n _circumst”ance.svthe car that he was driving left
\nroad, and then dashed against the tree. It<\/p>\n
. gwiillfbe’ seen that in this case the petitioner did
\nif  tiry.-‘to explain the circumstances, which
\ncui!fnin’ated in the accident, but simply denied
\n,.,_ih’aVi–ng committed the offence. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
.. learned Magistrate though that the burden of
\n“proof has not been discharged by the
\nappellant. This observation is not such as to
\nwholiy absoive the prosecution from proving its
\ncase. The accused may refuse to enter any
\nplea. He may refuse to give an explanation,<\/p>\n
5.\u00bb
\n\\.r’<\/p>\n
and he may refuse to examine any witnesses<\/p>\n
on his behalf. But still none of these facts can<\/p>\n
be taken into consideration to assess the guilt<\/p>\n
of the accused. The burden of proof never
\nshifts, and it is for the prosecution to provewits
\ncase. Explanation of an accused, or the,ple_a’i._V
\nentered by him, or the evidence adduced,”‘b.\\f_”v..
\nhim, may succeed in making the cas_e;””of–\u00abt’h–e_”  _
\nprosecution somewhat doubtful, and1ftonthat’V”
\nextent the plea, or the explanati~on–,..’1for”-they
\nevidence may be taken :i’rito’~acc’our}tpby the}
\nCourt. But, beyond that it-His? ri.otl..for”the\\
\naccused to set up and prove his own ‘case, in  ‘
\nmanner the prosecution__is bound to do.’ ‘._In__thi_s
\nDarticular case, .. ..  V ‘ –\n<\/p>\n
12. On thisvbasis  u”rged  in the instant
\ncase, PW1 to 3 have,’i%n_’th’e-inocu.l:ar”_stVatement had spoken<\/p>\n
to about t.h\u00abe,;injuriies,’s,.ufferedg._uby}the victim and his<\/p>\n
conseciulent..i,5d_Veat3h.  a close scrutiny of their evidence
\nreveals that thyeyhave:bolt”spoken to about the actual act of<\/p>\n
negliygence  the Ad.riVv’ing of the vehicle. The evidence of<\/p>\n
 A  ig~ain–s_impVorta’nce, as he was the Complainant and the<\/p>\n
 setthe law in motion. Even he claims to be at a<\/p>\n
Ad.i,stan.ce:o*f’iOO ft. away. He says that the accused drove the<\/p>\n
 vehi’c.le*at a speed of 30 to 40 KM. According to the learned<\/p>\n
it ‘vCOl5’nsel it cannot be termed as a high speed or speed<\/p>\n
H\u00e9uncontrollable.\n<\/p>\n
(3,, 2<\/p>\n
5\/<\/p>\n
13. He further point out that witnesses in their
\nexamination~in~chief stated and further admitted in cross-
\nexamination that Mahadeva was crossing the road”‘wghen he<\/p>\n
was hit by the bus. Simiiar statements wereV..m4ad:e4e:4by”9W2<\/p>\n
and PW3 in their deposition. But none of””these~..witn’e’sses,_<\/p>\n
have identified the driver to sayv”he”was ‘d_rivin\ufb02g’e_n.d’ange’rEngT,__ <\/p>\n
human life and was grossly ne:gV!.ig’en.t. ;lfr11e’refore;:’.A’i’tVVwas
\nurged that prosecution  no”  except
\nevidence of PW1 to.  Thins};VVaccuse’d\u00a7Vc’anVnot be called
\nupon to prove anything’ViuV’rt’hfer_.-.i_n’vAA_’ifi.i.s_’_’_.favo:.\u00a3r. Had the<\/p>\n
prosecution; ‘placed ::__any–:.~~’addiiti-ona._|__V:f’materiai which was<\/p>\n
incori’si%stent}v_Vwith4VV’  perhaps the accused<\/p>\n
necessa ri!-y  ‘o.t~i”ierwise.\n<\/p>\n
14…_ “It was’.furtTher urged that the burden to prove<\/p>\n
charge’ withiniacceyptable evidence is not on the accused, but<\/p>\n
\u00bb ionVth.e’pra,Sec_ution.\n<\/p>\n
  second decision relied on by the learned<\/p>\n
coiunseal is in the case of JAGADISH supra, where the Apex<\/p>\n
it it Court\ufb02ideaiing with similar case and on concurrent finding<\/p>\n
“I 0<\/p>\n
recorded by the courts held investigation should be on
\nscientific lines and reveal culpability of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
16. This decision was pressed into service..__to point<\/p>\n
out that apart from lack of direct accusation”–~,ifn._’ocuIar<\/p>\n
testimony of witnesses, even the documents  by<\/p>\n
the prosecution prepared duringwthye invevsti’gIati.on’.’_foo”._,not <\/p>\n
$<\/p>\n
reveal anything directly incriminating”‘agai.nv\u00a7t:”,th.e:Eaccu*sed.
\nThe learned counsel pointe-a:i:v,:”‘o_ut to”   sceneof
\noccurrence, which ac.cordinAg—–to..”,hirn-.accr’u”es-to..t\u00a7he favour of
\nthe accused. He vih,ad.,the driver bus at
\nspeed which situs would have<\/p>\n
shown t’-pike marks were noticed by the
\nInvestigating O’ffi’ce’.r\u00bb’a:’n_d therefore, as noticed by the Apex<\/p>\n
C,_urt>in t’r’ie.\ufb02decision cited supra, it reduces the<\/p>\n
.’ effect of ocular testimony of the witnesses.<\/p>\n
  ‘isfurther urged that strict view should be taken<\/p>\n
as” sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer was<\/p>\n
 “ina_drn’issible, as being hit by the provision of Section 162<\/p>\n
 gfif<\/p>\n
17. In support of such contention, it was urged that
\nthe evidence of Investigating Officer shows in the sketch
\nwas not on the basis of his observation. He submits that the<\/p>\n
sketch was prepared on the basis of the stat..eme–.nt of<\/p>\n
witnesses. Thus, it is inadmissible. Such a_.st–ate:ment,:’is–, hit<\/p>\n
by Sec. 162 Cr.P.C. and is inad_m.i.s.si4b|e;’.Con’s.gqtj’en_tiy;-the.<\/p>\n
sketch prepared on the statement the witnesses:V’f_wiiI7fa.lso <\/p>\n
be inadmissible. _V V _V _ 1\n<\/p>\n
18. I have bestowed””.,my_ concern to} this iegai
\nproposition and scrut’\u00a74.ni,seAd”._the.evi.den’ce of PW7′–Basavaraj,<\/p>\n
the Investigating OffiVcer,:._wVhoV—i,s:\u00bb.,th’e”~a\u00a3}’t.h’or of the sketch. It<\/p>\n
is seen –.  Officer was deposed “he
\nvisited the scenetef ogzeurrence and then prepared the<\/p>\n
sketch. in tI\u00a7e=_prese~nce of witnesses.” The evidence of<\/p>\n
 :Pvii7-_\u00a3\u00bb\u00a7a.sa.va~r.aj, Investigating Officer is not that the sketch<\/p>\n
 ~.is.~o.n  the statement of witnesses. What he says<\/p>\n
is,4″‘sketch”‘.is prepared in the presence of panch witnesses.<\/p>\n
V   “T=h.i,_s has to be distinguished. The sketch is recorded of what<\/p>\n
‘AA’-he-‘Aobserved at the place of occurrence. What is recorded,<\/p>\n
it “therefore, is as observed and not merely drawing of the<\/p>\n
sketch on the basis of hear say or statement given by the
\nwitnesses. I am therefore, not inclined to accept that the<\/p>\n
said sketch is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
19. Besides, PW1 has also in his e.v~id.enc_e”.j’stated<\/p>\n
that after lodging of the report, PW7–Ba_sa_v..araj:’~inspecteidd,<\/p>\n
the place and prepared panchar1jama,’vvhi_ch’he,  <\/p>\n
his signature is at Ex.P2V(.a)a. l_il<ge-llwise,
\nother witnesses is he hadllse\ufb01ein investigatjivonludone bv the
\nInvestigating Officer.:"i?.!3ereifnolis\u00e9;'paparationiotvthe sketch is
\nafter the visit of the  and it is recorded<\/p>\n
as what is sleeitgat the place of yoc-c'urr.e\u00a7nce.<\/p>\n
  may, the sketch is actually of no
\navail to"-1;'hle,VaVcc,u'sed'  it only covers the position of the<\/p>\n
vehic|e~ and Vscene____of the accident. Undoubtedly, it is record<\/p>\n
\u00bb idof,wh:a't_was.found after the accident. How the accident has<\/p>\n
. r occurred'_'\u00bbi.s'to'sbe noticed for the ocular evidence only.<\/p>\n
  The thrust of arguments is it may show<\/p>\n
2 it neg\u00e9ligwence but not gross negligence to indict him for the<\/p>\n
"'offence punishable under Section 304–A IPC. The accused is<\/p>\n
 {\\_ _..\n<\/p>\n
i .1′<\/p>\n
\\.\n<\/p>\n
[J<\/p>\n
answerable only to the charge for actionable negligence,
\nwhich would give rise to cause of action under civil law. In
\nsupport of this contention, reliance has been placed on the<\/p>\n
three decisions referred to supra.\n<\/p>\n
22. Before I advert to the pro_n.o.:._.I,.n’cen*i-lent ”<\/p>\n
Apex Court as to what constitutes giross: rs.egl.ig’ence,___iVt <\/p>\n
be necessary to refer to the.,,facts”‘aJnd circu’rns.t:a_nce”s.’ofthe
\ncase which had come up for’iconsidVerati’o–n_.:  isjnoticed that
\nthe case before the   Mathew, referred to
\nsupra, relates to  VA’f~:fp,ro’fessional medical<\/p>\n
negligence,i_corj:ge’gu.e*nt  ‘pat’i~e~nt died. The facts are:<\/p>\n
 Siiarrna, lodged a report at the
\njurisdictio-nal ‘p.olit\ufb02eV.a’t–~.budiiiana alleging that on 15-02-1995<\/p>\n
heghad ta\u00e9lkeiif |”iiVs.v”fat’ner”:Jiwan Lal Sharma and admitted as a<\/p>\n
 ,p’at:i’en’tl in”a privatemward of CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. On 22-<\/p>\n
“‘o.2’;19ff9s:,’i’%iiat,:f_iabout 11–OOPM he developed difficulty in<\/p>\n
 his elder brother Vijaya Sharma contacted the<\/p>\n
 A duty\/ft Wdrse, who informed the duty doctor. No doctor turned<\/p>\n
V.”VV-.,’~upr.–‘for about 20 to 25 minutes and thereafter Dr. Jacob<\/p>\n
sf”\n<\/p>\n
Mathew, the appellant and Dr. Allen Joseph visited the
\npatient and contacted him. Oxygen cylinder was brought
\nand connected to the mouth of the patient,_..___but the<\/p>\n
breathing problem increased further. Later it wa’sV:’fo7un’d.,,that<\/p>\n
oxygen cylinder was empty. By the time -anotheital’cyl.’i_’iid”er<\/p>\n
was brought, the Jiwan Lal Svharma d-lied;’.’lvie.x’attribt.itecij\u00ab <\/p>\n
negligence to the doctor (appel|;aht)7..’_an’d
\nOn his complaint the Inyes:tl”g_atinlg ._C_)ffi.;er_:’  Jacob
\nMathew for the offence pun,isha.b:le”u-.ndehr Section 304–A IPC.<\/p>\n
23.  the Apex Court<\/p>\n
held that theiiyal-lega:tllo’ns:’V,::of.:Vlneglipgyergce made against the<\/p>\n
doctor didV’n”ot’=-_,c’onstwr,u’e._ gross negligence nor it can be
\nconstrued*rec’l:le’ssraes’s or failure in performance of<\/p>\n
i3,r.Ci’\u00abfessionalxditlty. The Apex Court took note of the following<\/p>\n
. “c.irctimsta.nces as mitigating circumstances, which calls for<\/p>\n
 of the Medical Officer. The Apex Court<\/p>\n
0lbSer’*t?:ed’  Pa ra–49 thus:\n<\/p>\n
“Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by
\nomission to do something which a reasonable
\nman guided by those considerations which
\nordinarily regulate the conduct of human
\naffairs would do, or doing something which a<\/p>\n
‘\\  \/
\n\\_\\’ <\/p>\n
prudent and reasonable man would not do.<\/p>\n
The definition of negligence as given in Law of
\nTorts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (edited by Justwice
\nG.P.Singh), referred to hereinabove, _h0l.d\u00abS_*g
\ngood. Negligence, becomes actiona.b!e\u00bb.o’n’V;~fl.
\naccount of injury resulting from th_e:..act”–ofr..l
\nomission amounting to negligence att’ri_butVa’bie T<\/p>\n
to the person sued. The es.sential_–‘corriponents. V
\nof negligence are three:; ‘duty’, *’.brea–c_h’–.a.nd”V
\n‘resulting damage’.     ‘  <\/p>\n
24. With these obselrvations th’epA’pe5<  found fit
\nto apply the distincti'on.g_ to _<dea'i a\u00ab:il_\/:\\',iil;\ufb01I"%Il".1C'l"I\u20ac medical profession<\/p>\n
and observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
“Neg.!i’gen’;ce–_’_ in 1-the.._\u00ab* context of medical
\nproIfessi’on’ r:–ec\u00e9s’isariiy,–calls” for a treatment
\nV_w_igth”‘=._a’ *d:i_ffere’i:ce’. ” .._..To_.% infer rashness or
\n nge’ligenceijo’n_the partwof a professional, i_n
\n*__particular”–.a*doctor. ‘additional considerations
\n‘apply. A”ca~s_e’v.of\u00aboccupational negligence is
\ndifferentlfrom oneof professional negligence. A
\n simp’le_’lac.k– of. care, an error of judgement or
\n an accident, is not proof of negligence on the
\n” ilpartgtof a rnedical professional. So long as a
\n _doctor. follows a practice acceptable to the
\n _”medi’cal”jprofession of that day, he cannot be
\n“l*i\u00e9’lvd__ ‘liable for negligence merely because a
\nbatten’ alternative course or method of
\n“treatment was also available or simply because<\/p>\n
” almore skilled doctor would not have chosen to
\nfollow or resort to that practice or procedure
\nwhich the accused followed. When it comes to
\nthe failure of taking precautions what has to be
\nseen is whether those precautions were taken
\nwhich the ordinary experience of men has<\/p>\n
E<\/p>\n
\\<\/p>\n
I6<\/p>\n
found to be sufficient; a failure to use special<\/p>\n
or extraordinary precautions which might have
\nprevented the particular happening cannot be<\/p>\n
the standard for judging the alleged
\nnegligence. So also, the standard of car_e,g
\nwhile assessing the practice as adopted’,’~V._i”s
\njudged in the light of knowledge avai:i’a’oieg.ait5_.__
\nthe time of the incident, and not at the “date  ”
\ntrial.”\n<\/p>\n
25. With these observat,ion$,fhe”Apex <\/p>\n
the issue and held thus:\n<\/p>\n
“The word ‘gross’ has ‘n.ot’i\u00bbbeen use’dir’i Section
\n304–A of IPC, yet it igssetti-etc: that-i.n_ criminal
\nlaw negligence” ‘or recklessness-,.,to be so held,
\nmust be of such a high degrees as–..to be ‘gross’.
\nThe expression “l-rash” or .–~n\u00e9g[\/l’Qe’nt act’ as
\noccurring in SeCtion.:’304.–_A_of th.e”IPC has to be
\nread as “o;u,,a|ifie_d by’–wthe’aw’o–r.’d~ 7.G.Fbss|y’.<\/p>\n
 %VIt  seen that while considering the<\/p>\n
accusatio\u00e9ln’ to s.u’p;:>o’rtVthe charge, it was noted by the Apex<\/p>\n
  A Q’:p.urt.”cthat\u00e9allegations was too feeble to establish the doctor<\/p>\n
.(aaVCcu:segd’)V%’h_a’s done something which a professional man<\/p>\n
Ac.o__uld_,r~.ot,;.~ or he does something which a professional man<\/p>\n
 A coul’d.,__Anot have done. The Apex Court has also noted the<\/p>\n
 that in the provisions of Section 304–A IPC what is<\/p>\n
 incorporated is the expression rash or negligent act as<\/p>\n
i\\_ ‘<\/p>\n
__\/’<\/p>\n
,5
\n“\\<\/p>\n
qualified by the word grossly. However, the Apex Court
\nnoted that in order to bring out the guilt of the accused for
\nthe offence punishable under Section 304–A, theydegree of
\nproof of negligence must be high. Thus, the  has<\/p>\n
been render in different fact situation.<\/p>\n
27. Keeping in mind the\u00bbldl\u00bbctum’_4t  Cvoutrt. <\/p>\n
we have to examine this case a\u00a7.i,r,0 wh’ethei* this :arse.\u00a25.a, be<\/p>\n
treated as comes under  304__–A_iPC”:b’a’sed’: on the<\/p>\n
– Charge of Section 27.9 IPC_,—–tThei’–efore,t”nvo.w,.\/Ewe have to<\/p>\n
consider whether in Ha’ltcasel._VE\u00a7\u00bbf:ivthiisinature, the concept of
\ngross neg|igen’cve_  V-Ifl\ufb01vtould refer to the<\/p>\n
pro\\\/lsions  the Motor Vehicle Act, which
\nis actua”l~!y_ a vgu’icle’iine,t’o. consider rash and negligent driving<\/p>\n
ofgthesl.vehicl’e.\u00bb._.t:Vt Vllhen the charge is under Section 304–A<\/p>\n
  a’svt.,o~bVser_ved by the Apex Court, certainly apart from<\/p>\n
H~.pitovitng”_”_a_ctip’nable negligence it is necessary in law, the<\/p>\n
proseciutiotn must necessarily establish the culpable<\/p>\n
 “negligence. There is no distinction in IPC as to what<\/p>\n
t7-‘constitutes actionable negligence or culpable negligence.<\/p>\n
28. Provisions of Section 184 of the MV. Act is one
\nof such provision in which this aspect could be noticed and
\nwhat constitutes actionable negligence. Therefore, while<\/p>\n
dealing with provisions of Section 279 IPC<\/p>\n
against a person driving a motor vehicle  <\/p>\n
the provisions of Section 184 haste-be  <\/p>\n
29. The provisionssof Secti_on   l\u00e9lct
\nreads thus: if V l V ‘<\/p>\n
“DRIVING DAN’eE;Ro’LJsri;r;.-‘*–wnce,ver drives a
\nmotor vehicle at a-lspefed :or_.-i.n”ajjma.nner which
\nis dangerous tQ”ti”ue.:publi_c,_ haVving”.v”regard to all
\nthe ciuc-;i.nifstari_ces ..o’f ‘th”e{j’cas_ef’ including the
\nnature, c’on.dit,ion_ and __u3je. ofgthe place where
\nthe veh”icIe”i*s .drix;-egn’ and the amount of traffic<\/p>\n
which actually”i.s”‘at..–~the time or which might
\nreasoinably ‘b,e\u00bb~e”x.pected to be in the place,
\n shali bVeVp’uni’s;.ha”ble for the first offence with
\n ifmprisonment for a term which may extend to
\n igsix\u00abmonths””o’r with fine which may extend to
\n, _one_th,ousand rupees, and for any second or
\n _”s.ubse\u00bbqu1ent offence if committed within three
\n“yea–rs’go’f the commission of a previous similar
\noffence with imprisonment for a term which
\n“–may extend to two years, or with fine which
\n” ,may extend to two thousand rupees, or with
\nboth.’<\/p>\n
30. From the above referred provision it is seen a<\/p>\n
person could be found guiity if he is driving.,i’s.,_t’.=1ot in<\/p>\n
conformity with Section 184 of the M.V.\n<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 184 of the__M…,\\,\/_._  ‘i’t’Vci’eai*,.Vi;h’eJ.. <\/p>\n
in order to ensue the driver does,noteridaiinger:”hum’an.”iife or <\/p>\n
property, the driver is e:%Vp’e.r;ted ditto”:dri_ve.,”‘iij”;.the ‘,1,\/r1ar,,4er
\nstated in Section 184  be careful.\n<\/p>\n
Whereas the provisions.oi”.,.$sggtti’4o’n’,’:.3\u00e9{)4fVA IPC comes into
\nservice when by.  This becomes
\nvery re|ev.ar~i.t4″;Se’ction 184 of the Motor
\nVehicie__VAVg:t..Vi:$  for a period up
\nto  results in death it can be taken as
\ngross    <\/p>\n
 3.1..  instant case, the facts undisputed are<\/p>\n
.A :a.c:cid_ent spot__is near bus stop. Someshwara bus driven by<\/p>\n
1″~.tf;–e;a’ccu_~s_ed;,.”was approaching the stop, which was at a<\/p>\n
di”s’tan’–cae. “of 100 ft. Accused was expected to slow down the<\/p>\n
 ‘sp.eed,”‘ but before reaching bus stop the accused hit victim<\/p>\n
‘A’v–!M’a’hadesh. Thus, bus was moving at a high speed.<\/p>\n
R 517\/’
\nA ‘
\na’
\nk”\\<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
32. Further, he was reasonably expected to know
\nthat there would be movement of the persons at that spot
\nwhich he was approaching bus. Undoubtediy, he was
\nexpected to be cautious as the passengers wiil rusbttoywards<\/p>\n
bus to board the bus. We have to take judi\u00a7:i’a’i\u00ab’..n’o’t_e5the<\/p>\n
fact that due to lack of proper conveya.nc.\u00e94.:’:i’VnVrti:os_t <\/p>\n
area the peopie are much depen4den’t.._uponvthe’,pu’b|ic’—._if<\/p>\n
transport and to board such’ veh’ir;ie” the,_;xf.\u00bb,;,.sib,’t
\nmay mess it. In such ttcirtcnumystances:’thetfidrivers are
\nexpected to be   speed of the
\nbus when the bus  such incidents.\n<\/p>\n
 Vln: case, the bus is operated by<\/p>\n
private tran,_spor’t-‘er;’v. It is to be noticed that it is in the<\/p>\n
 e\u00a7.:i_de,.i1ce”i–a’nd notdisputed by the accused that road at the<\/p>\n
sp’ot4Vba_d’_;.. It was the place, where accident occurred,<\/p>\n
vehicu.iart,raffic was heavy. More over the accident occurred<\/p>\n
 righ”t._i_r31 front of Transport Office. Therefore, as required<\/p>\n
  Section 184 of the M.V. Act he was required to notice<\/p>\n
__5the nature, condition and use of the place where the vehicle<\/p>\n
if<\/p>\n
ta<\/p>\n
is driven. In this context that we expect explanation from
\nthe accused as to how the accident has occurred.\n<\/p>\n
34. For these reasons, I am satisfied that t’hegfinding<\/p>\n
recorded by the trial court that the prosecutgionfj_A\u00bbhia’s”V;p:ro.ved<\/p>\n
the charge of negligent driving by the <\/p>\n
under Section 279 IPC and   <\/p>\n
died and was charged under Slectironf 304:fA.tIvPC,wfasalso
\nproved and need no interference. it court on
\nreappraisal of the.\u00a7vigdenc\u00a7:’W.asu,TI’ig.ht ‘inxconfirming the
\nfinding recorded by  judgement of the<\/p>\n
appellate cou’.*t..gsuffe.rs gfrorn”no’ ~1i’i*avfi.rrr}ity legal or otherwise<\/p>\n
calling forVlinterferelnce\ufb01—.. ‘I3 am therefore, constrained to
\nconfirm”-.t_he_ finding of both the courts and I
\nfougnldilno reasonvto interfere with such conclusion.<\/p>\n
 trial court has imposed sentence for a<\/p>\n
 ._ ‘pl’e_riAo”c]:”(;vfV___o’ri;’e”‘year for the offence punishable under Section<\/p>\n
3″O4–A’: .’.[PC; and the First Appellate Court has confirmed the<\/p>\n
* :\u00a7.a4_meV;”.while deleting the punishment imposed for the<\/p>\n
7:’offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. In this regard<\/p>\n
the learned counsel Sri S.G. Bhagwan, relying on the
\ndecision of the Apex Court referred to above seeksgreduction<\/p>\n
of period of imprisonment on the plea has<\/p>\n
faced the agony of trial for more than Bggy\u00e9airsv <\/p>\n
this belated stage sentencing::’the”accused–l.:_’:to.u.unduer:\u00abgo.___ <\/p>\n
imprisonment would lead to several. hardships “an’d”it twill<\/p>\n
cause injustice to the accused\ufb02\u00bb<\/p>\n
36. After heanrig. the\ufb01’lAea”rnge.c\u00a3sV”Government Pleader
\nand the lear’y7*e’d.__Cou:ns’e’l~f9t”‘D,\u00e9l_i,\u20acioV:nc\ufb02lllllhalso feel that the
\nreasons    in sentencing the
\n period of imprisonment
\nto the –.p’eriVo’d.jialreaciyi””undergone during trial, would be
\nreasonable. the fine has to be quantified<\/p>\n
considering xtheivperiod of imprisonment already undergone<\/p>\n
 llccordingly, the petition is allowed in part.<\/p>\n
W4fsil.e””V:co’n’firming the finding of guilt recorded against the<\/p>\n
“accused, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside.<\/p>\n
‘A’-}’\\lccused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.i5,000\/~, which on<\/p>\n
X :\n<\/p>\n
 J).\n<\/p>\n
u<\/p>\n
recovery be paid to the wife of the victim. That shall be the
\nonly modification in the impugned judgement. In default of
\npayment of the fine amount the accused shailftingder go<\/p>\n
simple imprisonment for a period of threefhe<\/p>\n
accused is granted four weeks time to pa_y:”t.he:.ff’in.e be\u00abl’oVre~__<\/p>\n
the trial cou rt. Out of the said   <\/p>\n
the Daid as compensationto ieglalrheirs  l’victirnV’a’r2d
\nRs.25o\/- shall be the fine  $tat\u00e9;.V_T\ufb01’he3-Itrilalucolurt Sm
\nascertain the legal heirs  and then pay it to
\nthe wife or eldest su  <\/p>\n
 ….  “l’1::;i.~.  2  S d\/_<\/p>\n
VK<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Pyarijan S\/O Mohamed Hussain vs The State By The Police … on 17 November, 2008 Author: Jawad Rahim IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17″ DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAwAD CR\u00a3_.R.P. NO. 1617 OF 2006 .__f BETWEEN: I – 1 PYARIJAN S\/O […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34966","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPyarijan S\/O Mohamed Hussain vs The State By The Police ... on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pyarijan S\/O Mohamed Hussain vs The State By The Police ... on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-19T10:32:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pyarijan S\\\/O Mohamed Hussain vs The State By The Police … on 17 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-19T10:32:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4177,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Pyarijan S\\\/O Mohamed Hussain vs The State By The Police ... on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-19T10:32:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pyarijan S\\\/O Mohamed Hussain vs The State By The Police … on 17 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pyarijan S\/O Mohamed Hussain vs The State By The Police ... on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pyarijan S\/O Mohamed Hussain vs The State By The Police ... on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-19T10:32:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pyarijan S\/O Mohamed Hussain vs The State By The Police … on 17 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-19T10:32:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008"},"wordCount":4177,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008","name":"Pyarijan S\/O Mohamed Hussain vs The State By The Police ... on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-19T10:32:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pyarijan-so-mohamed-hussain-vs-the-state-by-the-police-on-17-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pyarijan S\/O Mohamed Hussain vs The State By The Police … on 17 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34966","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34966"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34966\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34966"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34966"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34966"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}