Partly allowed

R Puttaswamy v. State by Banavara Police

Karnataka HC27 Mar 2024CRL.RP/885/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death upheld as to guilt, but one-year simple imprisonment was set aside in view of the long passage of time since the accident, substituting a fine of Rs.60,000 payable to the deceased's legal heirs.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; one-year simple imprisonment set aside; sentenced to pay fine of Rs.60,000 (Rs.50,000 to deceased's legal heirs, Rs.10,000 to State), default: 3 months' simple imprisonment.

R Puttaswamy Vs State by Banavara Police — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:13115 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 885 OF 2016

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

R. PUTTASWAMY, S/O RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O K.H.KOPPALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BY BANAVARA POLICE, ARASIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 01.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.06.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.123/2013 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.05.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ARASIKERE IN C.C.NO.821/2008 AND THE PETR. TO BE ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE ALLEGED AGAINST HIM.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:13115 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2016

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338 read with Section 184 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that, on 19.10.2007 when C.Ws.1, 3, 4 to 6 were traveling from Arsikere to Horgal Thimmappa Temple at Bendekere in their goods vehicle, the accused who was driving the goods vehicle in rash and negligent manner dashed against the vehicle of the complainant, and in the said accident, C.W.2, and one Chandrappa were grievously injured. The injured persons were taken to the Government Hospital, and on the way Chandrappa succumbed to injuries.

¶22

The prosecution to prove its case, examined P.W.1 to P.W.16 and marked exhibits at Ex.P1 to P16. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted the petitioner/accused for the aforesaid offences. The judgment of conviction 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

The inmates of the vehicle in which the deceased was traveling were examined as P.Ws.1 to 6. P.W.1 who was one of

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:13115 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2016

¶27

inmate traveling in the vehicle, in his examination-in-chief has categorically stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the petitioner/accused. He further stated that the vehicle in which they were traveling was on the left side of the road, and the accused who was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner dashed against the left side of the vehicle in which they were traveling. Nothing is elicited in his cross examination to disbelieve his statement. Similar statement has been made by P.W.2 who was the driver of the vehicle in which the deceased was traveling. Nothing is elicited in the cross examination to disbelieve his statement. The other witnesses namely P.W.3 to 6 who were sitting behind the cabin of the vehicle in which the deceased was traveling have supported the case of the prosecution, but in their cross examination admitted that they did not see the accused driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

¶28

Though the witnesses to the spot mahazar have turned hostile, however, the investigating officer who has drawn the mahazar has supported the case of the prosecution, and nothing has been elicited in the cross examination to disbelieve the genuineness of the mahazar drawn. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are the eyewitness to the accident coupled with the spot mahazar clearly establishes that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner/accused.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:13115 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2016

¶31

The incident had taken place on 10.10.2007, and the accused was subjected to trial during 2008-2013. The petitioner is aged about 50 years as of today, and he is survived by his wife and children who are dependent on the accused for their livelihood. In similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.564/1999 has ruled as follows:

¶32

" The accident occurred on 04.08.1988. The trial court disposed of the case on 5-8-94. Almost for about six years, the accused was attending the trial. The accused has attended 72 to 75 hearing dates. Each date of hearing is almost equivalent to a day's confinement. Thus it could be said that accused has suffered unwritten punishment of 2 1/2 months of imprisonment. At this inordinate length of time imposing harsh punishment may to only affect the accused but it will have adverse impact on his dependants. For the offence u/s. 304-A, the Court has jurisdiction to impose sentence of imprisonment or fine or both. Imposition of sentence of imprisonment is not mandatory as per the section. Imposition of heavy fine also serves as a just punishment and effective deterrent."

¶33

The offences under Section 304-A of IPC is punishable with sentence of imprisonment for a maximum period of two years or with fine or both and does not mandate to impose sentence of imprisonment. Having heard the fact that the accident had occurred in the year 2007, and after the long passage of time, if the petitioner/accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment, it would cause miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in-part.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:13115 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2016

¶38

ii. The judgment of conviction passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere in C.C.No.821/2008 is confirmed . The order passed by the Trial Court sentencing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year confirmed by the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge is set aside .

¶39

iii. The petitioner/accused is sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.60,000/- out of which Rs.50,000-/shall be released to the legal heirs of the deceased if they are available, and balance fine amount of Rs.10,000-/- to be deposited with the state treasury. In default to pay the fine amount, the Petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

RKA

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

R Puttaswamy v. State by Banavara Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Puttaswamy v. State by Banavara Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Kempahanumaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Anjalamma Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Sri Suresha v Vs the Director of Agricultural Marketing

Shri. Sivaprasad. K Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sarala N Vs the Regional Transport

M/S Sangam Enterprieses Vs the State of Karnataka