Partly allowed

Sri B R Gurumurthy v. State by

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2021CRL.RP/1170/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal revision petition, setting aside convictions under Sections 279 and 338 IPC for rash driving. The court acquitted the petitioner due to inconsistencies in prosecution evidence regarding the victim's location and lack of rashness allegations.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner acquitted of transport offences. Impugned conviction and sentence set aside. Bail bond discharged and fine refunded.

Sri B R Gurumurthy Vs State by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.R.P.No.1170/2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1170/2012

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI B.R.GURUMURTHY S/O RAMASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT BILISHIVALE VILLAGE DODDAGUBBI POST BIDARAHALLI HOBLI – 560 049 HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI R.BHADRINATH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

STATE BY TRAFFIC POLICE RAMANAGARA – 562 117 …RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 09.11.2010 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., RAMANAGAR IN C.C.NO.246/2005 AND ALSO TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 09.08.2012 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, RAMANAGARA IN CRL.A.NO.1/2011.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.R.P.No.1170/2012

O R D E R

“Whether the impugned orders of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC suffer illegality, impropriety or incorrectness”? is the question involved in this case.

¶19

The petitioner was prosecuted in

¶20

C.C.No.246/2005 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Ramanagar for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Ramanagar Traffic Police in Crime No.114/2004 of their Police Station.

¶21

The case of the prosecution in brief is as

¶22

follows:

¶23

On 23.10.2004 at about 12.20 p.m. PW.1 Smt.Shivarudramma and her mother Smt.Boramma (PW.2) were waiting in Ramanagar KSRTC Bus stand to go to their village Manchanabele village. At that time, the petitioner drove the bus bearing No.KA-01-F-6199 in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life in the bus stand and hit PW.1. She suffered grievous injuries.

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.1170/2012

¶25

¶26

Thereby the accused committed the offences punishable

¶27

under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.

¶28

The petitioner was tried in C.C.No.246/2005 for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. The petitioner did not dispute that on that date he was the driver of bus bearing No.KA-01-F6199, occurrence of the accident or PW.1 suffering injuries. His contention was that he drove the bus slowly and the accident occurred due to negligence of the victim herself.

¶29

The case of the prosecution was based on the evidence of the victim PW.1, her mother PW.2, the Investigating Officer PW.3 and spot mahazar witness PW.4. The trial Court rejected the contention of the petitioner that accident occurred due to negligence of PW.1. Further the trial Court relying on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and held him guilty of the charges and the First Appellate Court also upheld the same.

¶30

The basic requirement to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of

¶31

Crl.R.P.No.1170/2012

¶32

¶33

IPC is the proof of rashness and negligence on the part of

¶34

the accused in driving the vehicle so as to endanger the human life. Mere speed of the vehicle is not a criteria to convict for the aforesaid offences.

¶35

In the complaint, there was vague recital about the petitioner’s negligence in driving the bus. According to PWs.1 and 2 themselves the bus in question came inside the bus stand from Manchanabele village, when the petitioner was turning the bus to go back to Manchanabele village the accident occurred. In the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, except the statements that the petitioner drove the bus in a high speed, there are no allegations of driving the bus rashly and negligently.

¶36

Ex.P3 spot mahazar was prosecution’s own document. It shows that the accident has occurred in the center of the tar road and the bus shelter is away from the accident spot. The passengers were supposed to be in the bus shelter and not in the centre of the road. There was no explanation why the victim was in the center of the tar road.

¶37

Crl.R.P.No.1170/2012

¶38

¶39

PWs.1 and 2 in their cross-examination have admitted that number of buses move at the spot of the accident. They further admitted that there was curve before turning the bus and there was traffic signal near the bus stand. They further admitted that to enter the bus stand buses have to move slowly. They further admitted that there were several tourists in the bus stand. Such admissions of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with scene of offence shown in Ex.P3 the sketch of the scene of offence go to show that the victim herself was in the center of the tar road instead of standing in the bus shelter or side of the road. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court both totally ignored Ex.P3.

¶40

When the accident occurred in the center of the road, inference is that the victim should have come in the center of the road suddenly. She should have explained why she was in the center of the road. Contention of the accused was that, to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act he was falsely implicated in the case. Failure of the prosecution to explain the presence of the victim in the center of the road

¶41

Crl.R.P.No.1170/2012

¶42

¶43

in the bus stand gives benefit of doubt to the accused. Therefore the findings of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court regarding guilt of the petitioner was contrary to the admissions of PWs.1 and 2 and the fact situation found in the sketch drawn in the mahazar Ex.P3. Therefore the impugned order of conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside.

¶44

The petition is allowed. The impugned order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court are hereby set aside.

¶45

The petitioner is acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.

¶46

Fine amount deposited if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner.

¶47

The bail bond of the petitioner and his surety shall stand discharged.

¶48

Transmit the records to the trial Court forthwith.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

KSR

Sri B R Gurumurthy v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B R Gurumurthy v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt G K Bhagyavathi Vs Sri K Thipperudrappa

Sri Halappa Vs State by Ripponpet Police

Kiran Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Abdul Hameed Vs the State, Represented by

Sri Abdul Hameed Vs the State Represented by

Sri Abdul Hameed Vs the State Represented by