The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death. The Court found no patent illegality and held the lower courts correctly convicted the experienced bus driver based on evidence of negligence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1175 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI. REVANNA SIDDAPPA G KUMBAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O GURUSIDDAPPA KUMABAR, DRIVER, T. NO.9539, KSRTC, MYSURU DIVISION, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF SAROORU VILLAGE AT AND POST, MUDDEBIHALA TALUK, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-563701.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G.S.NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.B.MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIRAJPET TOWN POLICE STATION, VIRAJPET, KODAGU DISTRICT-577302. REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-01.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 20.10.2016 PASSED IN C.C.NO.191/2009 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, VIRAJPET AND AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 07.09.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.110/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY PASS AN ORDER OF ACQUITAL OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 20.10.2016 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Virajpet (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in C.C.No.191/2009, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and the consequent sentence. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated 07.09.2018 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri (henceforth referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A.No.110/2017 by which, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court was upheld.
CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018
CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018
witnesses. Based on these, a charge-sheet was filed by the prosecution for the offences punishable under the aforesaid Sections. The Trial Court took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner in C.C.No.191/2009. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 who were the injured victims and who were travelling in the car and examined PW.4 to PW.27 and marked Exs.P1 to P31. The statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and he denied all the incriminating evidence against him. He lead his defense evidence as DW.1 and marked Exs.D1 and D2.
CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018
noticed from Ex.P10 and P18 that the petitioner had driven the bus at a very speed and had dashed against the car that was approaching from the opposite direction. It noticed from the photographs as well as from the report of the IMV Inspector that the bus driven by the petitioner was at a high speed. It therefore, convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, simple imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of Rs.250/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC, simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC.
CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018
and judgment of conviction of the Trial Court and the order of sentence, dismissed the appeal in terms of the judgment dated 07.09.2018.
CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018
that the sketches at Exs.P10 and P18 would indicate that the asphalted road was hardly 5.30 meters and it curved towards the southern side. He submitted that the petitioner was entering from the southern side towards north while the driver of the car was moving from north to the south and therefore, there was a possibility of the driver of the car not seeing the oncoming bus. He therefore, submitted that the accident was not due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner but was solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased.
CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018
invited the attention of the Court to the evidence of DW.1, where he stated that when he was turning the bus at the curve, the driver of the car dashed against the bus and that the petitioner applied brake and both the vehicles were thrown on to the mud road. He also contended that there were no brake marks on the road and therefore, the petitioner was guilty of negligence and was responsible for the accident. The petitioner claimed that the steering wheel of the bus had jammed and therefore, he could not move the bus. The learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the defense of the petitioner was an afterthought in as much as the Motor Vehicle Inspector in Ex.P12 had not indicated that the steering wheel of the bus had jammed. The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner was driving the bus on this route from the year 2007 and therefore had experience of nearly four years in driving between Hunasur and Virajpet.
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. I have also
CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018
perused the records of the Trial Court, its judgment as well as the judgment of the Appellate Court.
CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018
the petitioner who was driving the bus on the date of the accident. The Motor Vehicle Inspector (PW.26) reported that the accident in question was not due to any mechanical defects. The photographs of the two vehicles that were captured at the time of the spot mahazar disclose that the bus driven by the petitioner had travelled beyond the right side lane and pushed the car on to the kaccha road. This demonstrably indicate that the petitioner drove the bus at a very high speed and when he was maneuvering the curve, he could not control the bus and thus dashed against the car driven by the deceased. The sketch of the scene of accident at Ex.P10 and the sketch of the accident (Ex.P18) prepared by the prosecution correspond with each other and shows that the asphalted road was 16 feet wide and curved towards Virajpet. These two sketches disclose that the bus driven by the petitioner dashed against the car and jettisoned the car beyond the right side lane and on to the mud road. The petitioner was admittedly an experienced driver who was driving the bus on the same route for four years. He was therefore, expected to be aware of the road and the moving traffic that too, in the morning hours. The petitioner must have
CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2018
exercised due care and caution while driving a heavy passenger vehicle on a 18 feet wide road. The way in which the accident has occurred and the oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 demonstrate that it was the petitioner who was negligent and was responsible for the accident. The Trial Court after considering these material evidence has rightly convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. The Trial Court had sentenced the petitioner to a fleabite punishment though the petitioner deserved to be dealt harshly. The Appellate Court has also considered the facts of the case with all alacrity and has rightly upheld the conviction as well as the sentence. There is no error committed by both the Courts warranting interference by this Court.
Hence, this revision petition lacks merit and the same is
dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
PMR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding of negligence against the petitioner driving the bus causing death was erroneous warranting interference in revision.
Whether there was patent illegality in the procedure adopted by the Trial Court and Appellate Court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI. REVANNA SIDDAPPA G KUMBAR
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
