Conviction for negligence upheld; lesser charge sentence set aside due to merger with greater charge.

ORDER

This revision is filed by the revision petitioner/accused under Section 401 read with Section 397 of Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the II Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru in C.C.No.233/2006 dated 26.12.2013 and confirmed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Crl.A.No.24/2014 vide judgment dated 26.10.2015.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the Trial Court.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that, on 05.02.2006 at about 1.00 pm on Mysuru- Nanjangud Road, near Undabatthi lake within the limits of Mysuru South Police Station, the accused being the driver of tempo bearing No.KA.09/3855 drove it from Mysuru towards Nanjangud in a high speed as well as rash and negligent manner endangering human life and public safety and in the said process, he lost control over the vehicle. It is further alleged that, as such the tempo fell into 20 feet depth lake and as a result, one of the passenger by name Kempashetty died on the way to the hospital and CW.11 to CW.13 suffered grievous injuries, while CW.1, CW.14 to CW.18 suffered simple injuries. After having caused the accident the accused fled from the spot without even intimating about the accident to the nearest Police station or attending the injured and there by a complaint came to be lodged against him.

4. On the basis of the complaint crime came to be registered against the accused and the investigation officer after investigation of the matter submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section s 279 , 337, 338, 304(A) of the IPC read with Sections 134(a) and (b) and Section 187 of I.M.V.Act.

5. After submissions of the charge sheet as there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, the cognizance of the said offences were taken by the learned Magistrate, and he has issued process against the accused. The accused has appeared before the learned Magistrate and was enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers have been furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

6. Thereafter, the plea under Section s 279 , 337, 338, 304(A) of IPC read with Sections 134(a) and 134(b) and Section 187 of I.M.V.Act is framed against the accused and he pleaded not guilty.

7. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 19 witnesses and has also placed reliance on 20 documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case of the complainant. The case of the accused is of total denial and he submitted that there were number of pits on the road and the left rear tire burst, as a result, he lost control which has resulted in the accident.

8. After hearing the arguments and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused and imposed imprisonment for a period of one month with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 of IPC and Section 134(A) (B) and read with Section 187 of I.M.V.Act. He has also imposed imprisonment for a period of two months with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and he has also imposed imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304 (A) of IPC with default sentence.

9. Against this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has approached the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Crl.A.N