Back
A.S.ANAND, S.B.MAJMUDAR
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Satish – Respondent
Key Points: - The trial and appellate courts found negligence or rashness based on driving at a "high speed," but there was no specific finding of negligence or rashness, and res ipsa loquitur was used. (!) - There is a lack of material on record to define what "high speed" meant, and absence of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report and its examination weakens the case. (!) - The High Court acquittal was deemed not perverse; the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding acquittal due to absence of evidence of negligence or rashness. (!) - The incident involved a truck turning turtle, causing deaths and injuries; the prosecution failed to establish negligence. (!) - The judgment notes there is presumption of innocence and no statutory exception allowing presumption of rashness or negligence from high speed. (!) - There is an infirmity due to missing report from the Motor Vehicle Inspector and lack of examination of the Inspector. (!) - The appeal by special leave was dismissed; respondent acquitted; bail bonds discharged. (!)
ORDER
1. Truck No. MYE-3236 being driven by the respondent turned turtle while crossing a "nalla" on 25-11-1982 at about 8.30 a.m. The accident resulted in the death of 15 persons and receipt of injuries by about 18 persons, who were travelling in the fully loaded truck. The respondent was charge-sheeted and tried. The learned trial court held that the respondent drove the vehicle at a high speed and it was on that account that the accident took place. The respondent was convicted for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The respondent challenged his conviction and sentence before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Belgium. While the conviction and sentence imposed upon the respondent for the offence under Section 279 IPC was set aside, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentenced the respondent for offences under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC. On a criminal revision petition being filed by the respondent before the High Court of Karnataka, the conviction and sentence of the respondent for all the offences were set aside and the respondent was acquitted. This appeal by special leave is directed agains
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
