REVANNA SIDDAPPA G. KUMBAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction dtd. 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 Ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and the consequent sentence. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dtd. 7/9/2018 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.

(2.) The petitioner herein was charged for the offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. The prosecution claimed that on 8/11/2008, the petitioner was driving a bus bearing registration No.KA-09-F-3824 in a rash and negligent manner on Siddapur - Virajpet road and when it reached the Environment Education Centre gate at Maggula village, the bus dashed against a car bearing registration No.KA-45-M-468 approaching from the opposite direction. As a result, the driver of the car suffered serious injuries and died at the spot. The other three passengers in the car were also seriously injured and were shifted to the local Government hospital and thereafter, were shifted to Vikram Hospital, Mysuru. An inquest mahazar was drawn and a spot mahazar was also drawn. A post-mortem was done, which revealed that the deceased suffered fatal injuries as a result of the accident. A sketch of the spot of the accident was also drawn as per Ex.P10 and P18. The vehicles in question were examined by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who submitted his report that the accident was not due to any mechanical failure of the vehicles. The investigating officer recorded the statement of the witnesses. Based on these, a charge-sheet was filed by the prosecution for the offences punishable under the aforesaid Ss. . 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 Sec. 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.

(3.) Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had proved the spot mahazar as well as the sketch. It also held that the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 demonstrated beyond doubt that the petitioner was negligent and was rash and negligent in driving the bus and in causing the accident, resulting in the death of the driver of the car. The Trial Court found that there were no unearthly circumstances to establish that the accident occurred not due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner. The Trial Court 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 Ss. 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 279 of IPC, simple imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of Rs.250.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 337 of IPC, simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 338 of IPC and simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 304A of IPC.