Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
GURU BASAVARAJ @ BENNE SETTAPPA - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1325 of 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 9132 of 2011)
Decided on : 29-08-2012.
Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A-Death of one person and simple and grievous injuries to many others sitting inside the trailer of the tractor ,when tractor driven by accused appellant turned turtle towards left side-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal-Appellate Court sustained the conviction in respect of all offences but set aside the sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC-Revision Petition-Dismissed by High Court-Appeal-Plea of appellant that when he had been acquitted under Section 279 of IPC, he could not be punished in respect of other offences as the allegation of rash and negligent act could not be treated to have been proven-Instantly as the judgment of appellate court would show, view had been expressed that a separate sentence under Section 279 of the IPC was not necessary and, accordingly, said sentence had been set aside- The reading of entire judgment shows that conviction under Section 279 of IPC had not been annulled- Rash and negligent driving by accused that resulted in the causation of injuries to persons travelling in the trailer had been proved- There is no cavil that some had been seriously injured and one person who was grievously injured breathed his last- Thus, the submission of appellant that he had been acquitted of the offence under Section 279 of the IPC held untenable (Para 13)
Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A-Death of one person and simple and grievous injuries to many others sitting inside the trailer of the tractor ,when tractor driven by accused appellant turned turtle towards left side-Conviction of appellant accused-Plea praying for reduction in sentence- Instantly Compassion was being sought on the ground of young age and mercy was being invoked on the foundation of solemnization of marriage- The date of occurrence was in the month of March, 2006- The scars on the collective could not be said to have been forgotten- Weighing the individual difficulty as against the social order, collective conscience and the duty of the Court, held that no interference was called for with the substantive sentence affirmed by High Court -Appeal dismissed (Paras 30, 31)
Facts of the Case :
A. Appellant herein in the instant case was convicted and sentenced on Death of one person and simple and grievous injuries to many others sitting inside the trailer of the tractor ,when tractor driven by accused appellant turned turtle towards left side. On Appeal-Appellate Court sustained the conviction in respect of all offences but set aside the sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC. Revision Petition thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
The manner in which accident occurred due to detachment of trailer from tractor and distance to which tractor moved vividly revealed that vehicle in question was driven recklessly at a high speed. Analysing the evidence in entirety, trial judge as well as appellate judge returned the finding as regards rash and negligent driving- The appellate court, on further scrutiny, found that evidence on record clearly showed that driver had taken the vehicle to the left side of the road and, in the process, he moved away from the main road to the kachcha road and thereby the link between tractor and trailer got detached. High Court had opined that accused had not taken care to see that speed of tractor was within limit so that the trailer could not be detached. Analysis of the factual score in this regard could not be regarded to be perverse so as to call for interference.Appeal was dismissed.
Result : Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.-Leave granted.
2. In this appeal preferred by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the assail is to the judgment and order dated 21.06.2011 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 2284 of 2009 passed by the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad whereby the High court has concurred with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hospet in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2008 wherein the appellate court had set aside the sentence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) and affirmed the conviction and sentence for offences punishable under Sections 337, 338 and 304 A of the IPC as passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hospet.
3. The broad essential facts leading to the trial of the accused- appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) are that on 25.03.2006, about 10.15 a.m., the accused-driver was driving an unregistered new tractor on National Highway No. 13 at bypass road near the open well of one Golya Naik. The tractor turned turtle towards the left side and caused simple injuries to many people who were sitting inside the trailer of the tractor and grievous injuries to three persons. Injured Kotraiah succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Be it noted, all the injured persons were travelling along with their goods in the trailer of the said tractor.
4. After the accident took place, the concerned police sub-inspector (PSI) reached the spot, recorded the statement of the injured persons and after returning to the police station registered an FIR and thereafter proceeded to the spot, prepared the sketch map, seized the vehicle in question and sent the dead body for post-mortem. After completing the investigation, he placed the charge-sheet before the Competent Court for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
5. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the allegations, examined 10 witnesses and got a number of documents marked as exhibits P-1 to P-24.
6. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the incriminating material brought against him and took the stand that the accident occurred due to mechanical failure and not because of rash and negligent driving. However, he chose not to adduce any evidence.
7. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 187 of the 1988 Act and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC and sentenced him to pay a certain sum as fine and, in default of payment of the same, to undergo simple imprisonment for a specific period in respect of the offences under Sections 279 and 337 and Section 338 of the IPC As far as the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC is concerned, the learned Magistrate imposed the sentence of simple imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment of 45 days.
8. On an appeal being preferred assailing the conviction and sentence, the learned appellate Judge basically posed two questions, namely, whether the findings recorded by the trial court are erroneous and whether the sentence passed by the trial court required to be interfered with in appeal. After analysing the evidence, the appellate court came to hold that it had been proven beyond doubt that the accused being the driver of a newly purchased unregistered tractor not only overloaded tamarind bags on the old trailer but also allowed 22 passengers to travel on the loaded trailer and due to his negligence, the trailer got detached from the tractor as a consequence of which it turned turtle by the side of the road. That apart, after detachment of the trailer, the tractor moved up to 30 feet which clearly reflected that the tractor was in high speed.
9. The learned appellate Judge concurred with the view of the learned
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
