IN THE HIGH COURT OE KARNATAKA, BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH +
BEFORE E
THE HON-'BLE MR. l?'.'.B'." E %
r
CEIVEINAL R""\!"'."Q" EE-m=:on__:g;a.14rg-g- - '*1 gf 5
BETWEEN " T
Chandrakanth.
S/"o Teganenor, -
Aged about 41 years,'---_ __
Occz Driver, E
13 1.. 1::......a..1 m..1..I.. '
nlu nuguau umun, ~
District: Bidgah _ --
(By 5:; A_s:t;;a.;g; %
State _
Police Bégf,1£|l_ Pl.'-'.9; Rep, ;j..1=¢=.=11.t__
by State Proseclitor,
I-\_.NI -It .
= ..... ..':'
V. - Béngéleré; : Respondent
E-. I-IC-GP}
Revision Fefition is filed under Eieciion
397 .r_/w 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the Judgment
and sshtcncc passed by the Fast Track" Court-II, Bidar, in
"""~..4..I*1e-.3.%,'2902 swam 9=s--0m5E and .1-E»-I--mt-n+ ~ -I
ya 1.. .1 -avv uufiuxuxu «flu.
passed by the Pr1.., C.J.M. Bidar, in
C.C.No.80/"2000 Dated 8-I1-£2002.
M n V. .
X, ,(j_u\..LLLLL.
This petition coming on for hearing, the
liiiiafll XI
nuu"'E, $6 {H6 Lunuwuxgz
ORDER
The petitioner] accused View j’tVoffenc._§ *
punishable under Section 279%tt1éctand nets %
0 ‘Ho V” ~ v. ox’ V ‘V so V’
~ ‘ . 1- A 4′
.o. 9. penw. \lf-._’S.E.¥ …mcnths;._..e 1e–,ccnv1e.eu ter
l–i
n_n.derg., Ra
an offence punishabie no and
sentenced to undergo he is convicted
for an 338 IPC and
sentenced’ two years; and he 1..
ccntfic*;e’.i ;.–a,-..-11% -U1 uuu r Se’-“‘1 304-A
IPC »ttu1dergo 12.1 for two years by an
order of sentence which is modified by the
‘VI+’te’sic1’1ng’g ..Qfiicef;””Fast Track Court 11, Bidar by an order
eg;e;en9e+s;2ct.s5 p_.esed in cr1.A…o.e..,I2oo2 medmng the
offiiof conviction and sentence passed by the H1, C.J
X I3ider,.AA:’in c.c.No.3o/2000 dated 3-11-2002 in which the
‘–.._”1e.§.’nned Magistrate has directed the sentences to run
—- consecutively. {K 12a t2L uz.:u_ _
2. It is the case of the prosecution that or3.T””4.-T5-1999
at about 10-30 am. on Bagadal-Bidar Road:.~ne. s@§
village, the aceused being the driver
Q_”_1
?V-‘.5:-J-
n0. Lu 1.’ I
38,’4515, drove the as-§”‘e___ 1 32:, 11131.1
rashly and ncgiigentiy sdas
While so dr1v1n’ ‘- g the vehieie-:i_11 g he applied
sudden brakes to extreme left
side a1;d h_i_ _:_; eu.4vg.1.3z_:.’_1:V=._1.s”!r1A-eA_»s.’-;. paswpgexs were
passengers Shankar.
succumbed to the
injuides__ due to the accident The other
Gadgeppa, Kasturbai,
cn……1..n-…1..
C.’,:l1it.1.’=’-…*n..r..’.=..4,=., AKa’..ta, Jilan…’.=..i, Bandemma, on 111 u.,
Lilawati, Prabhu and Mohd.Jabbar all
~. Veifious types of injuries. The said injured have
by the pmsecution as P.Ws.5 to P.W.11.
[ * p.w.12 Dr.Madana Valjinath and p,w.1a D1:\.l.jji__aL_h_ 3….
“Emily _'{:’C:.uuuS ‘v’vuu ucawu ‘Cu gurcu If} C 1(1l.i”fE(J1 f)0§t
1…; 1…}. -…..:I
….
V mortem of the deceased. P.W.14 is an eye witness who
T and j
was travelling in the maxicab. P.W. 15 who is ti'”ieoCPI on
receipt of the complaint registered a case
the FIR to the jurisdictional T
,1……….. L.– 1 11:: 1f _1_;_.
Sn; ii. 13;. w._. 16 i
was 9. Motor Vehicle hiepectoiz’
inspecting the vehicle the issued a
report as at thetitlie accident
w.:.a._rItr_hI.f T i
_– —- :~– –u—-J
-an-no
nv 12.91.17 Ra..hod is
the ofiiceciwho jciitiu oi’ the invet1gau” “on
and med
T’he- evitj_ieiiee’i’*of..–P.W.3 to P.W.11 is to the effect
fl1e””-Vpefitioner’ Wes driv1ng’ the Maxicab in a high’
V. _ A heiiistitidenly applied brakes and thereafter the
efieracielwashmwed to the extreme right side which hit the
AA of ilearned counsel that there was a stray cattle going
the road and to avoid impact with the cattle, the
petitioner had to apply brake and. the vehicle went to the
Q’._,&M.
ufia; ua«._ j
extreme right and hit the eucalyptus Such
_ suggestion made to the eye witnesses
denied by the eye witnesses excepr
to avoid impact with tl1eV.ea¢ttle,d£so_””i1e hralres.
The eye witnesses the’ * the vehicle
having gone to :g?1g.t1t..lA.of__fl1e road and hit a
st…nr1d.i..g these-nfi’-‘=w’ ‘tu1.;led; iestauhshee mat the
H-rI.n._I. usu-
vehicle speed but rashly. As
such court that petitioner was
rasliand ..a:s-lafilrmed by the first appellate
Court does not in the _._re._ ..nt pe..1ti–.ni
V’ -. A regards sentence, the learned counsel
the petitioner is 3. _.l_. breed e….rni..g
mfmt “If. vii.=1A the fernilsr and he has got wife and children to
to who are solely dependant upon him. The family
no source of income except the petitioner’s earnings
das driver of the vehicle and submits that a lenient View to
Jsflmcofsuc
‘h wat1ted«–.. j
be taken while imposing sentence. Taking intoaceount
the submission made by the learned
1999, feei of
Courts below
petition. Hence, the _» 2 V’ t 1
“‘l”I-in rntrin-inn TIQf”;f*fhI1 9333 ‘B1t:’t”I’:’i’,lr Ejllflnrnfl “l’l’-IA t’\I’V”.£I’l’| A-P
J..u.\.u l.\.uvJ-.c!.LuI.l. 1.Jr.w\..|.u1.\.u..I, sup 1 Lu! u.I.;-uvvvu.- ILLS: \.u\..I\—.5 \J-I.
conviction oifences punishable
under_Sections; 304-9. IPC is confirmed.
by’ the trial Court for the: offences
‘A 4’ t 337 also stand
_ ___J. _ .I’_
I.
u.u:’:flC
‘1″iTli’i
‘ ;’ciIence.p1n”dshab1e under Section 338 IPC, the sentence of
H ” aside and in lieu he is sentenced to under
go R.I._ fot a period of six months. The sentence for an
aside and in iieu the petitioner is sentenced to undergo
R.I for a period of six months. The substantive sentences
are ordered to run concurnently. With these obsiérvaflons,
the revision petition is disposed of.
Sbb/–