State Vs. G. Radhakrishna

State vs G. Radhakrishna

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Karnataka Decided Dec 10, 1993

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/381531

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/381531
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: D.P. Hiremath and ;M.M. Mirdhe, JJ.
Decided On: Dec 10, 1993
Case Number: Crl. Appeal No. 574 of 1989
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

PENAL CODE, 1860 - Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304A - Vehicles crossing road should give way to vehicles coming from right side - Resultant accident on failure so to do, not negligence of other vehicle.;Rules of the road require that vehicles while crossing should first give way to the vehicles coming from the righ...

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections: Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State

Advocate S.R. Bannurmath, Addl. S.P.P.

Respondent

G. Radhakrishna

Advocate M.T. Nanaiah, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A
Reported In: 1994(2)ALT(Cri)218; ILR1994KAR497; 1994(2)KarLJ174

Excerpt

.....the driver of the autorickshaw to stop at the entrance of this south-north road, look for vehicles coming from his right side and them cross it go to his correct side.... it cannot be said that the prosecution has succeeded .in establishing the guilt of the jeep driver conclusively. - section 138: [arali nagaraj, j] presumption under section 139 transaction between husband of the complainant and the accused dispute as to factum of delivery of cheque by accused to the complainant failure of the complainant to prove acquittal of accused held, when the very factum of delivery of cheque in question by accused to the complainant and its received by the complainant from the accused itself is seriously disputed by the accused, his admission in his evidence that the cheque in question bears his signature would not be sufficient proof of the fact that he delivered the cheque to the complainant and the latter received it from the former so as to raise the presumption under section 139 of the act. in order to raise presumption in favour of the complainant, he has to establish the fact that it was he who received from the accused the cheque in question and, it is only after this fact is established by the complainant, presumption can be raised that the said cheque was issued by the accused towards discharge of whole or in part of any debt or other liability. in the instant case, the complainant has failed to establish that she lent the said amount of rs.50,000/- to the accused, and that the accused delivered the said cheque to herself (complainant) on the date on which it is purposed to have been issued or on any specific date. therefore the trial court was quite justified in not raising the presumption under section 139 of the act in favour of the complainant. order of acquittal is justified. .....and stood facing north. the jeep after the impact was facing west. this obviously explains how the incident must have occurred. it gives an indication that the autorickshaw wanted to cross this south-north road to enter north-south road and admittedly this being a double road must be considered to be the main road and the autorickshaw driver while entering the main road ought to have taken care to see that the road was clear for him to cross. rules of the road require that vehicles while crossing should first give way to the vehicles coming from the right side. naturally it was imperative on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw to stop at the entrance of this south-north road, look for vehicles coming from his right side and then cross it to go to his correct side. many a time, the vehicle drivers do not observe these elementary rules of the road thus putting themselves or the passengers to the risk of being met with accident. on reconstruction of the. entire situation at the time of the impact, this conclusion becomes inevitable. it cannot be said that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the jeep driver conclusively as under normal circumstances he could not have anticipated the rickshaw to enter on the main road without observing the rules of the road. we find no grounds to interfere in the judgment of acquittal. appeal fails and is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Hiremath, J

1. The accused - respondent was prosecuted under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. The charge against him was that on 14.12.1987 at about 6.50 a.m. on VISL Double Road at Bhadravathi, the respondent - accused was the driver of the jeep MES 8882 owned by a certain Mysore Paper Mills, drove it in a rash and negligent manner, hit the autorickshaw CTS 7579 and caused the death of the driver of the rickshaw and caused simple and grievous hurt to the passengers in it. Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that no rashness or negligence on the part of the accused was proved. In challenging this Judgment of acquittal, it is contended on behalf of the State by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that the Trial Court ought to have believed the evidence of the injured witnesses though no other eye witness has been examined. Even if independent corroboration was required, it was provided by Police Constable -P.W.5 on whose complaint the case came to be registered. We have reappraised the evidence.

2. Though the injured witnesses have attributed negligence to the driver of the jeep, we have considered the evidence with regard to the spot of accident. If only a sketch was provided by the Investigating Officer, it could have been much easier to understand what exactly is the prosecution story. We have reconstructed the incident with the help of the evidence adduced and the recitals in the panchanama of the spot. It is undisputed that the accident occurred on the Western side of the Double road running South-North. The jeep was proceeding from South towards North. It is also stated that on the Western side is the VISL Guest House. The auto came from that Guest House side and perhaps wanted to enter the Eastern road running North-South to keep on its side on this Double road. After the impact, the positions of the two vehicles give a tell tale story. The autorickshaw was damaged on its front side and even the right side handle and driver's seat were damaged. After impact, the autorickshaw appears to have turned to the North and stood facing North. The jeep after the impact was facing West. This obviously explains how the incident must have occurred. It gives an indication that the autorickshaw wanted to cross this South-North road to enter North-South road and admittedly this being a Double road must be considered to be the main road and the autorickshaw driver while entering the main road ought to have taken care to see that the road was clear for him to cross. Rules of the road require that vehicles while crossing should first give way to the vehicles coming from the right side. Naturally it was imperative on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw to stop at the entrance of this South-North road, look for vehicles coming from his right side and then cross it to go to his correct side. Many a time, the vehicle drivers do not observe these elementary rules of the road thus putting themselves or the passengers to the risk of being met with accident. On reconstruction of the. entire situation at the time of the impact, this conclusion becomes inevitable. It cannot be said that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the jeep driver conclusively as under normal circumstances he could not have anticipated the rickshaw to enter on the main road without observing the rules of the road. We find no grounds to interfere in the Judgment of acquittal. Appeal fails and is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1993 Same Parties State vs G. Radhakrishna Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge D.P. Hiremath and ;M.M. Mirdhe, JJ. Acts & Sections Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A

Motor Vehicles