IN THE HIGH comm' 01? KARNATAJQL "
CIRCUIT BENCH, GULBARGA; ' Z
DATED: THIS THE 14:12 DA;Sr"E)'I?f';3I}"GU'ST..:2Q0SV ' T T
BEFC)RE' ----
THE HONBLE MR.JUsT:é§E V. JAQANNATHAN
CRL. REv,;;~:§,*Tri*:0:NV';$.rQ§2(;5/2063"
BEYTWEEN:
B. B3r'at21PDa;' % "
S/0 R'aII:1appa_ - ' " A
Driver in_.I{éx'a¢ya'33.}<hed.'Bus
01" Eng; No.AP4;--gZ£0/9;-3«}_I;«__ _ *
I2/ofliiaikodc % __
Tq. Naray "
Mandalmaxxagi *
AP. % ' . = %
.....PE'I'I'1'IONER
Mallikaxjun, Adv. ~ Absent)
V --V The rnataka
~ ~ .. f _ __ "1'f1rougi:V_¥;;I*1e Palice, Bidar
V' gR11t*a1.AP.S., Bidar
% i?,A/bZ!?.S.P.P., Bangalare.
, . . . RESPONDENT
‘ ” Sri.Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, HCGP]
This revision petition is filed u/s 39′?’
Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the o1’dezj’3:..
C.C.No.}.}51/05 passed by the Add}. J:«.{£?cj~J’:1; A
Bidar, dated 25.9.07 and set
CrI.A.No.l62/O7 passed by the
31.1.08.
This petition day,
the court made the fonowifigt .%
I-ierci thé meager for me State
and
:2. éonvicted by the mug: court
for :)fi’e1.1Vct%;s,_ p91′:niv$;1*1ab1e under Sections 279, 33′?
and was smitemed to undergo 8.1 far
I to pay fine caf 533.560/–», in deflault, to
_ mydé1’°g<3«fS.'If(n* 15 days fa' the crffence puniahabiee
2'79 of {Pi}; to urxdergs SI for thrw
and H} pay a fine of R-s.5CIO/–, in default, to
V[ 131616130 8.} for 15 days far the offencé puns' hable
}
under Section 337 of IPC; to undergo S.I
and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in de£au1Lgt;;tt;us:da}go 3.;
for three months for the 3
Section 333 of IPC. The, said f 3
and sentence was also by Vtheg_":IcrVs:ver;appellate
court and hence
3. The prosecution the effect that
on 20.5. this petitioner was
dI’I’V11′ 18.1′-.l1e lb/Z’-3V1..1″§on Bidar Narayankhed
road road and the accident
occurred on and negligent driving of the
_ bus and the bus turned turtle near the
village leading to number of
simple injuries. Based on the
lodged by PW-2, the statements of the injured
uh’ were recorded and report of the motor
inspector was secured and ultimately charge
. ‘ 3’ was submitted.
4. At the trial, following the accused
guilty, the prosecution led the ev’:ideI1ce_
PWS 1 to 13 and Ex.P1 to P24 mm
the glass pieces produced at = *’
denied the prosecution ofidence
against him and it-;ci__ After
appreciating the learned trial
judge had :5: Ame case of the
13rosecutic%IiV ” aocused as aforesaid.
The Vifive trial court judgment.
5. $m¢o~ Govemment Pleadcr for the State
subzfiiited V-..fj;:2fi__jcj__A;o;aksseI1gers in the bus who were
V. iI”1_§1J1*<:<'¥_VAg";;\.*r§'t:'s:_i{ie11ce before the trial court with mgrd
fQ'–1_,t: oocurrod due to rash and ngligeni:
V VV . part of the petitioner and therefore when
'A V' * evidexilce re:-mainw unchallenged, there was
more required to prove the case against: the
T jfsétitioner. In support of the above submission, iearnoci
?
ceunsel took me threugh the evidence of the V.
Witnesses. In the light of the above submiseienv _
have caxefuily examined the njafexial
learned Government Pleads: ‘V
the trial eeurt and I find fiad
travelled in the bus W219 emm
and out of them PWS to the fact of
the bus bei11g:.e-deijjwsfffezi manner
and the bee A Gniy the bus
evidence stating
that there ‘teas the steering being
moved, it did ?:ui11 therefore the has turned
yvitgeeeseéas treated hostile. The accused
Viigbt” »v4¥2§i1?:j:;”_’;:)ther defence evidence te indicate any
in the vehicle. On the either hand, the
:v..«.._’pr0secui£qf1 had produced Ex.P22 which is the
and as far as the said report, there was no
‘ defect in the vehicle. Therefore, it is clear
the accident occurred only on account of rash fiflfi
negligent driving by the petitiener. Though the’
Inspector was not examined, yet the
exmg had ruled out any kk
vehicle. Moreover, the accused
of he being on duty on duatef’ Wie’ t.he
Duty Certificate i381.’-;1″‘(:.’£V_1fi The
injuries caused to the eye witnesses.
are also provefi Ex.P5 to P2 1
issued by Hospita}, Bidar.
of the evidence on record,
no ofl1ef”<:jewv taken by the trial ceurt can
fiaessible éif1d.VVg;e'.such the convictien ané sentence
' trial court was rightly afiirmed by the
court and therefore I dz) net see any
otfler feesen te difier from ihe View taken by both the
V' * beiew as the finding reeerfied is based on
eViede;1ce. %
K
7. The petition therefore stands Efihe
petitioner was wanted baii by this ceurt:
same is cancelled and the
before the trial court to u:’:{ier§o__ «V _
triai court to take svfepsi the
presenm of the aczcumgi pefifioififjr Vt 1″1e’ sentence.
[ % 3udg6
Dvr: