Allowed

Sri Balaji v. State by Kunigal Police

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2024CRL.RP/870/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Driver convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC for a fatal road accident challenged his conviction in revision. The High Court found the eyewitness evidence and spot sketch did not conclusively prove rash or negligent driving and acquitted him.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside at trial and appellate levels; petitioner acquitted of all offences; bail bonds cancelled.

Sri Balaji Vs State by Kunigal Police — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:14994 CRL.RP No. 870 of 2015

¶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. 870 OF 2015

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. BALAJI, S/O C. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O D. KALENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, C.R.PATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 617 231.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SATHYA D., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. V. NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BY KUNIGAL POLICE, KUNIGAL,

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 130.

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 25.7.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., TUMKUR IN CRL.A.NO.42/2014 AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 25.3.2014 PASSED BY THE ADDL. C.J. AND J.M.F.C., KUNIGAL IN C.C.NO.60/2010.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:14994 CRL.RP No. 870 of 2015

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner/accused who is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC is before this Court.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that, on 19.10.2010 at about 6:45 a.m. the accused being the driver of the Tata Sumo, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger the human life and while trying to overtake two wheeler which was proceeding in front of the vehicle, dashed against the tanker lorry coming from the opposite side, and also dashed against the two wheeler which was going on the left side of the road. As a result of which, three vehicles were damaged and the pillion rider of the motorcycle fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

¶22

The prosecution to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P14. 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 which was confirmed 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

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:14994 CRL.RP No. 870 of 2015

¶26

P.W.1 who is the eyewitness to the incident is said to have been standing near the shop at a distance of 25 ft. from the place of the accident and in his cross examination, he has categorically admitted that he saw the Tata Sumo vehicle of which the petitioner was driving from the distance of 25 ft. and there was distance of 10 ft. between Tata Sumo and the motorcycle and saw the tanker coming from the opposite direction which was at a distance of 20 ft. He has further admitted that there was a distance of 5 ft. between the motorcycle and the Tata Sumo vehicle at the time when Tata Sumo dashed against the tanker coming from the opposite direction. He has further admitted that the Tata Sumo vehicle of which the petitioner/accused was driving was on the left side of the road. He has further stated that after the accident, due to the impact, the motorcycle fell into a ditch. But, at that time of drawing the mahazar, the vehicles which were involved in the accident were parked by the side of the road.

¶27

P.W.2, injured witness who was the rider of the motorcycle, in his cross examination has stated that since the documents of the tanker were defective and also the driver of the tanker was not possessing a valid driving license, complaint was filed against the petitioner/accused who was driving the Tata Sumo vehicle.

¶28

A perusal of the spot sketch at Ex.P14 indicated that the road on which the accident had taken place was 24 ft. wide, and from the spot of accident, the motorcycle had fallen at a distance of 20 ft., and the Tata Sumo Vehicle was parked at about

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:14994 CRL.RP No. 870 of 2015

¶31

a distance of 30 ft. from the spot of the accident. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the spot sketch does not establish that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the petitioner/accused, on account of which the pillion rider of the motorcycle died. In the absence of conclusive proof that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner/accused, the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Court is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i. Criminal revision petition is allowed.

¶34

ii. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.03.2014 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal in C.C.No.60/2010 and the judgment dated 25.07.2015 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Crl.A.No.42/2014 are hereby set aside and the petitioner/accused is acquitted of the aforesaid offence.

¶35

iii. Bails bonds, if any executed, stands cancelled.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

RKA, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Sri Balaji v. State by Kunigal Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Balaji v. State by Kunigal 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

M.B.Suresh Vs State by Kadur Police

Mr. Antony Praveen Dsouza Vs Sri Shrinivas