Allowed

M.B.Suresh v. State by Kadur Police

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2024CRL.RP/210/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC for a fatal road accident. The court found the parked tractor-trailer partly obstructed the road without warning indicators, so the accused was not solely responsible. Conviction confirmed but sentence reduced to imprisonment already undergone, subject to fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to imprisonment already undergone under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC, subject to trial court fine.

M.B.Suresh Vs State by Kadur Police — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:14996 CRL.RP No. 210 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 210 OF 2016

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M.B.SURESH, SON OF M.M. BHEEMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.26, 6^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN, KN EXTENSION, YESHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y T., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE BY KADUR POLICE, CHIKKAMANGALURU – 573 231.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 01.10.2015 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.76/2014 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. S.J., AT CHIKKAMAGALURU AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR IN C.C.NO. 564/2011.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:14996 CRL.RP No. 210 of 2016

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner/accused who is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC is before this Court.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that, on 05.03.2011, the petitioner/accused drove the Maruti Omni car in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger the human life, and dashed against the tractor and trailer which was parked on the left side of the road, due to which the Umashankar and Eshwarappa who were the inmates of the Maruti Omni Car sustained injuries and succumbed to the same.

¶22

The prosecution to proves its case examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P13. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record held that the prosecution has established the guilt of the petitioner/accused beyond all reasonable doubt and passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. Against which the present revision petition is filed.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶24

P.Ws.3 to 5 are the eye witnesses to the accident and in their cross examination they have categorically stated that the tractor and trailer was parked partly on the road and partly on the mud road, and there were no warning indicator alerting the other drivers that the tractor and trailer was parked. The accident had taken place at 11:00 p.m. and the driver of the tractor and trailer was under obligation to switch on the indicators to alert the other drivers who were proceeding on the road,

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:14996 CRL.RP No. 210 of 2016

¶26

indicating that the tractor and trailer has been parked to change the punctured tyre.

¶27

The panchanama at Ex.P.10 indicated that the tractor and trailer was parked partly on the road and partly on the side of the road and therefore, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner alone was responsible for causing the accident, though the petitioner/accused was under the obligation to take sufficient measures to avoid the accident.

¶28

The petitioner/accused was in judicial custody for 145 days. The offence under section 304-A of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for maximum period of two years or with fine or with both. The petitioner/accused having undergone imprisonment for 148 days, it would be appropriate to confine the sentence of imprisonment for the period which he has already undergone. In the above facts and circumstances, I pass the following :

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i. Criminal revision petition is allowed.

¶31

ii. The judgment of convicting the petitioner for the aforesaid offences is hereby confirmed.

¶32

iii. The order of sentence dated 16.06.2014 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur in C.C.No.564/2011 and confirmed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Crl.A.No.76/2014 is hereby modified as follows:

¶33

a. The petitioner/accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 279,

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:14996 CRL.RP No. 210 of 2016

¶36

338 and 304-A of IPC for the period which is already undergone, subject to payment of fine amount imposed by the Trial Court in the order of sentence.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

M.B.Suresh v. State by Kadur Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.B.Suresh v. State by Kadur Police

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

M C Prakash Vs the Regional Transport Authority Chitradurga

Shri.G.v Sathish Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

United Breweries Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. v. Ramesh Reddy, Vs Mr. Noor Ahmad

Mr. Antony Praveen Dsouza Vs Sri Shrinivas

Sri Balaji Vs State by Kunigal Police