Karnataka High Court
C P Kumar vs State By Hunsur Town Police on 8 April, 2008
(Ry Sri. Anand K. Navalgimath, HCGP.,) and sentence passed by the C.J (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC., IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANG GALORE. DATED THIS THE 8T# DAY OF APRIL 2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. 'JUSTICE R, B. NAIK CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.699 ¢ OF 2005 BETWEEN C.P.Kumar, = > S/o Puttaraje Gowda, Major, - . . R/at Chikka Avakalagu village, Arakalagudu Taluk, | Hassan District. _ a ; Petitioner . (By Sri. CN. Raju, Advocate for M fe s S. Shankarappa and Associates) | a ; s, State hy Purieur Town Police, Rep by &.F-.P., High Court: of Karnataka, Bangalore. _ 1 Respondent a This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the Judgment Hunsur in C.C.No.158/2002 dated 30-7-2003 and also in CrL.A.No.115/2003 on the file of the P.O., Fast Track Court-II, Mysore, dated 13-4-2005. x y Rr nwau-- go '8.1 for two months and he is further convicted for an . offence ; punishable under Section 304 A IPC and is passed by the JMFC, Hunsur dated 30-7-2003 in ws : _C.C.No.158/2002. The said order of conviction and This petition coming on for hearing, this s day 'the Court, made the following: The petitioner/ accused is convicted for am offence punishable under Section ar 9 IPC and i is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i in de "fault to under go S.I for two months; he is convicted for an offerice punishable under Section 337 PC and j is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ in default te under g go S.l for. ind month; he is convicted for an offence punishabie under Section 338 IPC and is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default to under sentenced. to undergo 8.1 for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- by an order of conviction and sentence sentence is confirmed by the judgment dated 13-4-2005 oo autorickshaw was dragged for a quite long distance after passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-Tl | in Mysore in Crl.A.No. 115/2003. : 2. It is the case of the prosectition that on 25-4-2062 at 8-30 p.m. the petitioner was driving lorry bearing No.KA- 19-1947. He 'was coming irons 'Mysore and was proceeding -- towards: "Hansur. He dashed against autorickshaw bearing No.KA-09 808 1 coming from the opposite direction which was-coming from Hunsur. As a result of tine "avcident 'the passengers travelling in the autorickshaw - sustained grievous injuries. The . ; the accident. Two of the passengers in the autorickshaw who had sustained grievous injuries died. There were -. eight persons travelling in the autorickshaw. 3.The prosecution in support of its case examined -P.W.1 to P.W.22 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.24. A an incident. They all have stated that the lorry. driven by the 4. P.W.1 is the complainant. He in his evidence bps stated that he was standing near the peirol bank and a lorry was coming from Hunsur | side and in the € opposite direction the autorickshaw above referred was. going towards Mysore and sight i in the mid of the road there was an impact between the lorry and: the autorickshaw and the autorickshaw \ was s dragged for & log distance. All of them \n Auto sustained injuries. 'One died at the scene of occurrence and 'another died in' the hospital PW. 2 is the panch witness for the ting: lest panchanama Ex. P.3. P.W.3 is the panch witness for the spot mahazar Ex.P.2. P.W.4 is also - a \panch witness for the spot mahazar Ex.P.2. 5. PWS, P.W.6 and P.W.7 are the injured witnesses who v were travelling in the autorickshaw on the date of the 'petitioner was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed | against the autorickshaw and two of the inmates Oech died a tained i ied an they sus e injuries. A he a > part of the investigation. The evidence of the injured eye witnesses all go to establish that the accident has 6.P.Ws.8 and 9 are eye wilnestcs to 'the accident in question. They too speak about the impact between the : lorry and the autorickshaw which occurred. in the mid of the road. P.W.10 and P.W. 13 have been examined by the prosecution. But they have tured hostile. PW. 14 is the eye witness who corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 and the injured | eve td witnesses, Pw. 15 Manjunatha is the Motor Vv chicle Ir sspector_ who has deposed that he inspected ihe vehicle involved in the accident and has stated that the accident is not due to any mechanical defect. P. Ww. 16 is the owner of the lorry. P.W.17 has not ; - supported the case s of the prosecution. P.W.18 is the ASI - ; who on receipt of the information registered a case against the petitioner/accused. P.W.19 is the ASI who conducted witnesses and the complainant and the independent occurred right in the mid of the road. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P.24 reveals that towards east of the place : Adrre tin a on the eft side of the road. In fact it is the driver of the where the impact took place, the road divides into two. One goes to Hunsur town and the other one 'goes to : Hunsur Bus Stand. The spot shown where the impact | took place reveals that the lorry was rocveding ¢ on the left side of the road. The autorickshaw has gone on the right side and has. dashed against, the Jory and thereafter it was dragged tox a tong side. The « autorickshaw which was going on its left side has gone te the mid road and appears to have dashed against : the lony. 'The place of the impact and the place up to winich the autorickshaw has been dragged go to reveal that the lorry was s being driven on the ; Tent side of the road. Just prior to the place of impact the - : road being divided into two. AS such it cannot be held that the petitioner/ accused was wrong in driving the lorry ~ autorickshaw who has gone on the wrong side. This fact has not been taken note of by the Courts below. As such the same requires interference in the present petition. Hence, the following: | oe Dluawdu_ ORDER
The revision petition is allowed. "The "order of | :
conviction and Sentence passed by the trial Court as affirmed by the first appellate Court is set. aside. The accused is acquitted of the char ges levelled against him. The bail bonds stand dissolved. The fine paid, if any, shall be refunded. ta him Sbb/- . -- 7 oa | Judge