Manoj Kumar Vs State by Kaup Police Station — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Manoj Kumar Vs State by Kaup Police Station — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal revision petition partly allowed: conviction under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC confirmed; sentence alone modified - Section 338 IPC: imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.1,000/- (default: simple imprisonment for one week); Section 304(A) IPC: simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.5,000/- (default: simple imprisonment for one month); sentences to run concurrently; petitioner entitled to set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the Trial Court in C.C.No.937 of 2012 and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2013 for offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC should be set aside in this revision petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. +2 more

Court's answer

The rough sketch of the accident (Ex.P17) shows that the accident took place on the extreme left side of the National Highway from Mangaluru to Udupi, i.e., the car was moving on the left hand side of the road.

Ratio / Principle

The right side of the car and the left side of the offending lorry were damaged (photographs Ex.P2 and Ex.P4 to Ex.P6), and after the accident the lorry moved further towards the right, got turtled and fell down from the road, showing that the lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, the driver being unable to control it even after the accident.

Key takeaways

The petitioner, examined as DW1, by stating that he had moved towards the right side of the road in order to avoid the oncoming car, admitted that the accident took place on the right side of the road and that he had moved towards the wrong side.ratio¶59
The IMV report (Ex.P19) shows that the accident did not take place due to any mechanical failure of the vehicles.ratio¶59
Notwithstanding the hostile witnesses (PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW9), the prosecution proved its charges against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence of PW4 and PW5 coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex.P2, Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 and Ex.P17, and the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court rightly convicted the petitioner for the charge sheeted offences.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Ss.397/401 Cr.P.C.) by the driver of a tipper lorry (Regn. No.KA-20-B8990) against his concurrent convictions under Ss.279, 338 and 304A IPC (II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Udupi, C.C.No.937/2012, judgment dated 16.11.2013, confirmed by the Principal District & Session Judge, Udupi in Crl.A.No.110/2013 dated 25.03.2015) for a rash and negligent driving accident on 28.01.2012 on NH-66 near Udyavara village, Udupi Taluk, in which car inmate Murali died. HELD: conviction confirmed. Rough sketch Ex.P17 fixed the point of impact on the extreme left (Mangaluru-to-Udupi) side of the highway, showing the Indica car was on its correct side; photographs Ex.P2 and Ex.P4-Ex.P6 showed damage to the right side of the car and left side of the lorry; the lorry thereafter moved further right, turtled and fell off the road, indicating rash, negligent and high-speed driving beyond the driver's control. The petitioner's own testimony as DW1 - that he steered right to avoid the oncoming car - admitted driving on the wrong side, and the IMV report Ex.P19 ruled out mechanical failure. Hostility of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW9 did not affect the case, which rested on eyewitnesses PW4 (wife of the deceased) and PW5 (driver of the car). The Supreme Court precedents urged by the defence (Mrs. Shakila Khader v. Nausheer Cama, (1975) 4 SCC 122; Syed Akbar v. State of Karnataka, (1980) 1 SCC 30) were held inapplicable, being rendered on the evidence of those respective cases. Sentence alone was reduced in view of the lapse of more than 14 years since the 2012 accident: S.338 IPC - one month and Rs.1,000/- fine (default one week); S.304A IPC - six months simple imprisonment and Rs.5,000/- fine (default one month); sentences concurrent; set-off allowed under S.428 Cr.P.C.