Dismissed

Mr.Hussainabba v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Aug 2022CRL.RP/813/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Revision Petition filed by an accused convicted of rash and negligent driving causing death. The High Court dismissed the petition but abated the imprisonment sentence due to the petitioner's death during pendency, directing deposit of the fine imposed.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; imprisonment sentence abated due to death of accused; fine deposited with State Treasury.

Mr.Hussainabba Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.813 OF 2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. HUSSAINABBA, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O ADAM BEARY R/O ALADANGADY, ANEMAHAL BADAGAKARANDOOR BELTHANGADY TALUK:574214

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HARISH V.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE BELTHANGADY CIRCLE, D.K. PIN CODE-574214.

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. S. VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP) (PH)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 17.11.2011 PASSED BY THE C.J. AND J.M.F.C., BELTHANGADY, D.K., IN C.C.NO.341/2008 AND MODIFIED ORDER DATED 31.07.2013 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., D.K., MANGALORE SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K. IN CRL.A.NO.206/2011.

¶17

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This revision petition is preferred by the accused

¶21

against the judgment and order dated 17.11.2011 passed by the Court of Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Belthangady, D.K in Criminal Case No.341/2008 and the judgment and order dated 31.07.2013 passed by the Court of V Additional District & Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore in Criminal Appeal No.206/2011.

¶22

The Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC and under Section 66 r/w 192 of M.V Act. Separate sentence were imposed for the said offences.

¶23

In the appeal preferred by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal in part and sentenced the accused only in respect of Section 304(A) of IPC and under Section 192 of M.V Act, holding

¶24

¶25

that no separate sentence is necessary for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC.

¶26

The accused was sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of six months and to pay a fine of 5,000/- for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of 2,000/- for the offence under Section 192 of the M.V Act, in default of payment, to undergo S.I for a period of three months.

¶27

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is no more. He has filed a memo along with a copy of the death certificate, which shows that the petitioner died on 22.07.2022, during pendency of this appeal.

¶28

The learned HCGP submits that he has confirmed the death of the petitioner from the jurisdictional police.

¶29

The case of the prosecution is that the accused being the driver of Bus bearing No.KA-20-B-8374, on 20.06.2007 at about 2.50 p.m, drove the said bus in a

¶30

rash and negligent manner on account of which, near

¶31

¶32

Jarige Bailu of Kaliya Village, he lost control over the bus and the bus capsized on the western side of the field. Due to the said accident, CW1 and CW3 to CW30 and CW32 sustained simple injuries and CW31 sustained grievous injuries. Further, in the said accident two persons died at the spot and another died in the hospital.

¶33

The prosecution has got examined 15 witnesses

¶34

and got marked 12 documents in support of its case.

¶35

Amongst the prosecution witnesses, PW-1 is the first informant and she is an injured. She has supported the case of prosecution. Further PW's-3 to 12 were also traveling in the said bus as passengers. They have sustained injuries in the accident. The prosecution has got marked the wound certificates of the injured witnesses as Ex.P12 to Ex.P51. These witnesses have deposed that the accused was driving the bus in a high speed and they had requested him to slow down and in spite of that, he drove the bus in a high speed, due to which, the bus capsized. They have stated that two

¶36

¶37

persons died at the spot and one boy died in the hospital.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to contend that the spot of accident is not proved because the witnesses have stated differently regarding the spot of accident. The said contention cannot be accepted as it is not seriously disputed that the accused was the driver of the bus at the time of accident and the witnesses who were examined before the Court have categorically stated that he was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident.

¶39

Based on the oral and documentary evidence and after giving reasons the Trial Court has passed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence against the accused. The evidence and material on record has been re-appreciated by the Appellate Court. Though the defence tried to dispute the identity of the driver and also the place of accident, the same has been considered by both the Courts and recorded a finding that it was the petitioner who was driving the bus at the time of incident

¶40

¶41

and also given a finding that the spot of accident is also proved.

¶42

I find no illegality in the concurrent findings

¶43

recorded by the Courts below.

¶44

Revision Petition is dismissed .

¶45

Since the petitioner/accused has died, the sentence of imprisonment imposed against him for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC shall stand abated.

¶46

In so far as the sentence of fine is concerned, a total sum of ` 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) is imposed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and Section 192 of M.V Act.

¶47

If the fine is deposited the same shall be remitted to the State Treasury.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Mr.Hussainabba v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Hussainabba v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri. Somashekara Reddy Vs Smt. Nalina Lakshman Reddy

The State by Sringeri Police Vs Sri. Prakash B N

H.N. Naveen Kumar Vs Smt.Ushadevi

Abdul Rehaman @ Rehmathulla Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K M Nagaraja Vs M S Nagabhushana

Syed Shamshuddin @ Syed Altaf Vs State of Karnataka