B S Mahesh vs State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2010

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

B S Mahesh vs State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2010

Bench: C.R.Kumaraswamy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE__. 

DATED THIS THE 05"' DAY OF DECEMBER 2013

BEFORE

THE HON'E3LE MRJUSTICE C R_K.L.Ii\?§ARA;'SW"A'¥94'f-.*  "

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION ";\;0.=;IT;4~:I8 OF"2:£:)'; 

BETWEEN:

B S MAHESH
S/O SIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RESIDING AT 15"' STAGE ._  A
CHAMUNDESWARI CIRCLE   S  '
BEHIND KALKI STORES     
RAJEEVNAGAR      '   
MYSORE *v 1,: *3.". rvuv »
..PETITIONER

(BY SR1:A"NH'RADRAI<RT'SHN:A;.ADv) .V
AND: A A I I I I

STATE OF KARN>'\TAKA.'--
BY KIK}«§ERIzPOLIC'E-- 
 " "R,EPRE___SiEN;_TEL3..T_BY ' ---------- ~ "
 THE STATE PUBLIC
"RRoSECuToRT  ' .
HIG!-E«.ECOAUvRT--.BUILDINGS
BANGALORE  
   ...RESPoNDENT

" SRIBTRAJASUBRAMANYA BHAT, HCGP) A' * ..TI".--EIS CRLRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 OF OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

----JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 28.06.2007 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) 8: JMFC, KRISHNARAJAPET IN C.C. IQ NO.272/2002 AND CONFIRMED ORDER DATE) 21.04.2008 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE HOLD-I_E\§G CONCURRENT CHARGE OF FTC-III MANDYA IN CRL.A.NO.S9/2007 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED.:"a_ THIS CRL.Ri° IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS 'm,j1"s ~ COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D . 3 4' This Criminal Revision Pehtion 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C_.. by the':'i'eai*»ned ..Co:u:nselE?for the revision petitioner pravy'ir.V:g«to-- judgment of conviction daﬂ¢d:V'3_8~0E"L'2'o0:7: Addi. Civil Budge (Jr.5Dn';)__ lﬁrishnairajapet in C.C. dated 21.04.2008 passediﬂby. Judge holding concurrent charge " _ Court-III, Mandya in Crl..!x.{:l\iVo:59/2O0?.Vand 'acquit the petitioner/accused.

~iVha_jve heard learned Counsel for the revision pet.ltVionerN_a;s'OO' well as learned High Court Government Pleadérfor the State.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed a "memo. The memo reads as follows:

gJl'/-4- Ix} ""i'he petitioner humbly submits that he wiii stick on/restricts his prayer in this criminal revision only for sentence i.e., legality of sentence and he wiii undertake not to argue..._Oh merits for acquittal."

4. Learned Counsei for therevision"*:p;eti'tio'_n.er'i-_ confines his arguments oniy in ;"resij_ect of. 'i'e§Jai'iVt~\#.,,._yofri_i sentence and he does not urg'e__an.y othergroui'nVds«§._jI~t..i.s the contention of Eearned cousneiy_.foi~._th'e_V revision pétitioner that the revision petitioneir-.isc_sentence. He further submits that the"T'r'ia:l": the revision petitioner "ti'=,_F.' under Sections 279, 337, 338_aI'!C| Penal Code and he was sentencecl toéunderhgo 'simple imprisonment for a period of . it "'t~i,vo"'yeai€s=forthe oiffieince punishable under Section 304A of i1ndi_ani*f?en_ai tfearned Counsel for the revision petitioner xi""".__V"iuArther' submits that iorry was loaded with Sugarcane with j'syup.po.rt of Bamboo sticks and since the Bamboo sticks §_,,;"£ in were broken, the Sugarcane tilted on one side. Though it is the case of revision petitioner that PW1 has deniedthis suggestion but PW2 has stated in his chief that in the lorry there were about 12 to 13" "

states that near Chowdenahalli gate, t-liieflolrryi.go-t4'tujrt_ied,.' and dashed against a tree. Since thelliorry with excessive speed, this accident course of cross examination to him were denied. Pi'/v.3_'s evidence line as that of PW2. Pw43--.l,,hasi:i'Qs'tate:d1iﬁiiiisichviehrl'examination that the accuseddrov.e'::'-tliie speed and when the lorry ._c--an*iie'.,n_e}ar,'the-...._Chowdenahalii gate, the lorry turtied died. There is down gra,d_ientsi.from"chgowdenahaili gate. PW5 has stated in his ,Ac'n.i_e'f §.3»'.)i(?EI.i'lT"§iiA.i"i._BitlOl'i that when the lorry driven by the 1"a_ccu_se'd7yiivasAV.l',:'going ahead, the road was dug for the purpose'ofinstailing telephone wires, hence the wheel of ihthe. lorry fell into the pit, consequently lorry turtled 'dVow'n. PW6 has stated in his evidence that the wheel of "the lorry feil inside the pit, the iorry turtled down and the {M2 accident occurred. PW1O has stated in her evidence that she examined the injured and issued wound certificate. They are at Exs.P1-4 to 20. PW11 has stated in he's':'¢'iig;:e,i<, examination that the lorry driver allowed 7 to 8 "

to sit in the lorry cabin and he wasdrivingtithe',"l'orr'vVV'vv.ith excessive speed and dashed against a._tree.i"- _Durin_g"

cross examination, he states tilia_:'t~~..when" the to consume tea, at that tirne, th--eVVV:,o"gassehgers'boarded the lorry. The bamboo sticks' iorry tiited on one side at Chowcl'e_nah§ii'l'i":gai:eV__:: ,,;.:..g¢'§""narrow bridge and it is in the road.

Therefore, struck on the pathoie.

The pathoie' i*was"--..':Foir4'V.'the purpose of installing _ teieph,on'es..wires'.i.,_V_VV'Flence, the lorry turtled down and accident PW12 states in his evidence that the drive-r.__oAf"th'e.,iV_io~rry"'cirove the vehicie with excessive speed and d'ash-ed -against a tree. PW13 states in his evidence there" down gradient at the accident spot and the e.i,orry"--i'was loaded with excessive sugarcane and it 'rice-risequentiy, this accident occurred. PW14 has stated in his chief examination that Manja, Ramesh and another unknown persons died and he collected the postrn.o'rr-tyem examination reports. PW15 is another medical _ has stated in his evidence that at 3.939 p.rn."ine:.1ew>ra'rnined.c:it injured Mahesha and issued injury certi:fi'ca:tel'as per QEVQ'-s!?_22:;Vs's« pertaining to Padmarnma. *i5_\N.;t6 its'-the Mo't'o.r..\[eVh_i§ciet Inspector and he has stated in his-.ev§dence' there was no mechanical defect has registered the case in Crime Noﬁtl./:200--T2, Vgserzt FIR to the concerned C.ou§':t. .

6," iiii 'Vi'Thoughifittiie'"prosecd't'E'on":witnesses categorically states that ..the.VIVorryV against a tree, but in the sketch the tree' isyéittrei away from the accident spot. a_F-he tyre Anﬁar-E<s"found on the middle of the road. to the effect that lorry was loaded with Su*g_a'rcanée""w_ithh support of bamboo sticks and since the "V.,'bamboo"Sticks were broken, the sugarcane tilted on one There is also evidence to the effect that the /' ix 6 7 passenger boarded the iorry when the accused went to consume tea.

7. The factor to be considered whiie awaifdi-ng sentence is the nature of evidence and circumsta_nce's-tin"

which it was committed, the degree of deiiberatioyn'shown' by the offender etc. AH these mustjhiave 't'.o7b_e by the evidence.

8. Learned Counsei re'visi'or>.?

reiies on the ruling in Karnataka Vs Sharanappa Basnagoudavoiiyregotzdari'glgaorted in AIR 2002 Sc 1 529 hard that:

_ the view that having ufegayrd to"'th_Ve"ser'ious nature of the accident, "tresuited'""in the death of four persons, singie Judge shouid not have V".-..iintVertéredg:='with the sentence imposed by the V"-.Cou'rt -tielow. It may create and set an unheaithy precedent and send wrong signals to A tithe subordinate courts which have to deai with 'severai such accident cases. If the accused are found guilty of rash and negligent driving. fa.-M Courts have to be on guard to ensure that they do not escape the ciutches of Eaw very Eightiy. The sentence imposed by the Courts have deterrent effect on potential wrong j"

and it should commensurate vi-'--it'ra*v~{:t.he'V.:i seriousness of the offence}, Courts are given discretion §n.__tn.e. matt-er'=of by K sentence to take stock ofgtfie wide rar:wdVVva_r\fi__n'gV range of facts that mightbe-..reE~egvant'for:fixiriig the quantum of'se'nten'ce,:_'VAb'ut_,th~--e discretion shaii be exercised'wiiitVh'idu'e" larger interest ofthe_soc§Aet'v'aVrid_:'it.:i»sxneegiiiless to add that pa.s~singj'i'i:o_t th'e""offender is probabiy "of the criminal J'us"tic'eias.§*isterf%:."'

9. The t'ouc'hVst,o'ri--eii4for awarding sentence for the offence" of thiVg~-.{i.a_tti're whether the driver was insensibie Vinwthis case, it is undisputed fact that with excessive sugarcane, bamboo stic'I¥:~--an<:J: titeiiilassengears have aiso boarded the lorrv when went to consume tea. It is not forthcoming wh'ether the accused has granted permission or not. The if srtetch discioses that the peepai tree is quite far away from the accident spot. Taking into consideration of this fact, it can be inferred that there was no callousness on t'4h.e_i*puar..t of the driver. There is no material to point revision petitioner was deliberately cruel or.b"ru»t--a:ii , ""i"'ai<-ing__' "= V into consideration of this aspect, in my3view',_Vs~entenr:e__ imprisonment awarded by tht.5.:_Tl'_l.al Court iV.e.jV:'2{veafs.:'§foi? the offence punishable under S__e!:Cut'3.(:lFl'.304A'0:f'_Iltldléiﬂ Penal Code is harsh and the vs'ar£1eA is ,6 months. The ' imprisonment awarded:.u'i'ideij S'e.c_ti_o'n.sv_ 337 and 338 of Indian the offence ifndian Penal Code. The accuseC...'is._alsVo:"enti:tied"for-benefit of set off under Section 428 of V3 A 3 »In 'result, I pass the following:

V 3 O R D E R

a)' ThVe.'CV§i?.i_ni;inaI Revision Petition is allowed in part.

"-.b) judgment of conviction and sentence of 2 years '.";for the offence punishable under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code is reduced to 6 months. Q.» E0

c) The punishment prescribed for other sections i.e., 2.79, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code also with the offence punishable under Section{:é.'3'044?'ei:

Indian Penal Code.

d) He shall be set at liberty if is:_no.t3 reeqtiired"I'nj-sa_n'yé;Ve_ié other cases.

Misc.Cr|.4872/201C~._for sdspejnsiVon._ of se'n'te~nce does not survive for consicieration'swi'n:Ce__.r:tiiwe'V..Enain petiton is disposed of and 'a'C¥CQFdii1ag|yiififis~.d§'§iiTi~iSSEL§£'.I rrrr Sdl "

mugs 10

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court