AND

ORDER

OF

Digitally

signed by

SUMA

Location:

HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

- 2 -

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 20.10.2016 PASSED IN

C.C.NO.191/2009 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,

VIRAJPET AND AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF

CONVICTION DATED 07.09.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERE IN CRIMINAL

APPEAL NO.110/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY PASS AN ORDER OF

ACQUITAL OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCES

UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction

dated 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 Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and the

consequent sentence. The petitioner has also challenged the

judgment dated 07.09.2018 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.

- 3 -

2.

The petitioner herein was charged for the offences

punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. The

prosecution claimed that on 08.11.2008, 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

- 4 -

witnesses. Based on these, a charge-sheet was filed by the

prosecution for the offences punishable under the aforesaid

Sections. 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 Section

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

- 5 -

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 Sec