IN THE HIGH coum or KARNA'l'A.KA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17"! DAY 0? NOVEMBER BEFORE V4 V' THE H()N'BLE MR.JUS'_lfI(3E_ n.ANANI§.:g Y CRIMINAL REVISION PETI'f'1lOP€?'_'R4.'j,:J.lA"£»'?'_>'1~ :4 BETWEEN: s/o Nt1amt:dci!n:'I&afi» . Ami emit Occ: i')rivcr,* , -- R/0 Hffiiitt, Tailtk. '- ' ' Bclla1'Y'District._ " ...Petitiom~:r (By S. N; Adv. Far Sridayakumar S. Patil Assgijciatcs, Adv; A V T Prosecutor, Koppal.,_' PSI='of Rural Police Statixm, ' Kappa], Kasppal. Respondent
‘iBy_ 311.P. H. G-otkhmcii, HCGP)
‘I*h1’scrim1’nalrevisiaoz1petitmn3’sfiledundcrsoction
397′ r/w mtfion 401 of Cr.P._C. praying to set aside the
judgmcnt and decree dated 25.4.2006 in Crl.A.No.35/2005
passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court
No.1, Koppal, confirming the judgment dated
cc No.196/2005 passed by the Civil Judgej(Jr,.TV%Vr:vn;’v_-as’
JMFC, Koppal, and etc. __ ..
This petition coming on
Court made the followiflg: ” A’ «. . ”
0r§.. E.
——–. .–.-.,«Vu-n
The peaaona/a§;cusui”§n;s§i’mvf ” am’ mm’ and
sentenced for offences 279 and
304 (A) IPC. of the trial court
“We ¢ é .
and minfiimfljfi well settled that 11). a
V.¥§V. ;’ ‘ ” , V . ” V:
pefi’tis}’)i1%”VTV “u1§;;:1er this court eannot
inmxftéit d’ the ma!’ court and First
App¢l]atc’ trial court and Fitst Appcflatc
errors of law at/there we glaring
‘ in appreciation of evidence.
have heard learned Counsel fin’ petitioner mt!
V x :Govcz’amznt Advocate for State.
3. The accident in qucstknn occurred near Gankgera
V The deceased Ba.sa% was imocked down and
run over by the bus dxivcn by accused near Ganigcra village
hf» “=~/fi”‘”‘9’LW,
bus stand. As per evidence of eye witnesses
Ex.P.3, the accident took place on the 9»
from the direction in which the ‘
width of the mad is abo11I;.*2Q feet’ _
There was no congestion or
vehicles. The 53 years.
From the evidtmce on to infer that
amscd had”$)i&de1i1A1y and had made it
the accident. Even on
1e«a1;f:§teeiafi¢§;1 fllthat the comm below have
not of evidence as error
of I :3_cs>3:~’.tnV>t find any gmunds to interfere with
” _ ujixfigment of conviction.
seen the triai court has convicted accused
fer of§’en9e*sA punishable under sections 279 and 30-4(A) of .
x trial court has passed separate sentence for an
pimishabie under section 30-4(A) of I?C. when the
accused is convicted for ofiences punishable under sections
279 and 30-4(A) IPC, an ofience under section 279 IPC would
merge with an ofibnce under section 304(A) IPC. Therefore,
there was no need to pass sepmate senmncefijer an,’ baficnce
under section 279 IPC. J V’ V’
5. In the result I pass the %
The petition is accepted .. 3 The:
petitioner under sections
sczitence for an offence IPC are
confirmed. The _ an ofience ‘under
section 279setasici e;–.V A .’ V’ V
“””
”