• 11th Additional CJ and JMFC Court sentences tempo driver to 3.6 years and owner to 1 year in jail
• 31 persons had met their watery grave in the accident that occurred in December 2010

Mysuru: Fifteen years after the tragic Undabatti Lake accident on Mysuru-Nanjangud Road in December 2010, that had claimed the lives of 31 persons travelling in a tempo, the driver and owner of the tempo have been awarded imprisonment, besides imposing fine on them.

Chetan, the tempo driver and Sanjeeva Murthy, the owner, have been found guilty under various IPC Sections, in the judgement pronounced by Sanjay M. Mallikarjunaiah, the Judge of 11th Additional CJ and JMFC Court today.

Chetan, the prime accused in the case, has been sentenced to jail for three years and six months and imposed a fine amount of Rs. 12,600 while Sanjeeva, the Accused No.2 in the case, has been sentenced to one year jail and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000, according to M.N. Sowmya, Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) in the case.

On Dec. 14, 2010 at around 5 pm, an over-speeding tempo (KA 09, 4622) carrying 40 persons exceeding the capacity of the vehicle, driven in a reckless manner, had fallen into Undabatti Lake.

Of the total travellers, 31 fatally drowned in the water while others escaped with serious injuries. The driver had fled from the spot, abandoning the vehicle, neither informing the Police nor showing courtesy to shift the injured persons to the hospital. 

The Mysuru South Police had booked a case (CC No: 2508/2011) under IPC Sections 279, 337 and 304 (a) and R/w 188, 177 and 192 (a) Indian Motor Vehicles (IMV) Act.

Following the accident, the Police, during the course of investigation, found that the accused had repeatedly violated the norms related to carriage capacity.

Dy.SP C.D. Jagadish, the Investigating Officer (IO) in the case, had submitted a charge sheet to the Court, following the investigation, with Mahadeva Swamy, a Policeman playing a key role in bringing the witness persons.

The prosecution had produced 27 persons as witness and 83 documents to prove the charges framed in the charge sheet, along with references to the past judgements of the Supreme Court in similar cases.