IN THE HIGH QQURT OF' KARNATAKA f L
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGQ .'
EATED THIS THE 23% £>AY._QF '; ziL$%;::é:}§'5 8
BE?oI§E ' ii' A' V. 'V
THE Hozmw rsz1'R , ';;:.igsfI'Ii<:*Vg: fitafiifing regresanteci by
" VS??? {3!)I1_;,-:'t Building,
2 Afiaugaioha, V' .. Rsspomient
(533: Sr; suishash Mallapur, HCGP)
'T.}3is criminal revision pcfifion flied under Section 39'?
,mii}. 401 of CLPC, pmyixxg to set aside the judment dated
:'a"2'.'2.20o6 passed by the ; Addl. Fast 'frack court at
Gulbarga in Cri.A P§o.6[2%2 and set asiée the judgment
" dated 4.10.200} passcé by the lcamfld Add}. JMFC, Yadgir
in CC' H0373/1998.
This criminal I"(':ViSif}I}. petition mmmg on fear admission
this day, the Court made {ha following:
ORDER
Though this matter is ‘foséf a£i1::issi£):1_:gA.itV_ViéQ’L. ”
takenup for final disposal t}A1’c5A’
counsel for parties.
2. The pefitioner géas siéntznced for
afiences punishable pgdfix 337, 338, 3045
IPC. it is the’ o£’:.pr<;«s$é:ut:g§;:;'.ii.h2étL£ir£ 1 1.5.1998 at about
8.00 a.fi1_., V":th.Vt§;Ediiver af a tempo beann' g
Regn. ;at a high speed, in
rash and ne@ig¢n.f ifiicheé ~ Saidapur magi.
$116 to 01:3: went off the read and
x é'$§'"7a vres111t, some 0f the passengers
},Vj;3§fl 'g'ieVous injuries and 'chm:-3 passengers
died as 3._ 1V*Vcsu,}.: suficmd in the accident.
‘Th£:’_ court rckying on evidence of eye witnesses
my 1’, 2, 6, 8 is 22 and P533324 tn 31, has helci that am
‘ A V 41 L éfii-ixiexat was am; ’09 rash and negligent driving ”
It cannot be disputed that the above V’%a:é$x*:3
izraveliing in the: tempo at tha tinge caf a_c;:;–i:i»<§11:.V";:gV
C()I}SiSt€Iit avidttnce that petitioigezr '
involved at the time of accidtgnt.
Thérc i3′ aim . évideizcéé 0:1 L
racers! ta Show that ths accid{§ £1€;’.Ahaci d1§;§ to sudden
mechanical failure or SQmé:”§fi€%§QB, Whkth was beyond
contra} ofpetiticner. «
4. T1353″ –;iucige:l o:; appre
ciation of
evi<:is,1:1ce.A §:1:;_=_=,1(_i petitiofier was guilty of ofihnces
punishable ugaaer L'27"9';.§3?,- 338, 304A.
5. The I appeiiatgv <:<}i:1'tA"v{:ii"'1t=-app1'&ciatioI1 of evidance:
in a
?ca<3nf1i;"s.ée:ci_"%€he~– 1indi§:igs"x'iefCoInied by trial court.
case: af State of Ktzrala »«~v3~
Eathaveeian Namboodixi Ieported in MR
$£::931″ih;as held:
géf tiiurs: High court 3316.
Having axamm ml the impugned Judgment
bearing in minsé the
” ‘mnmntions raissed by the Learned ceunsel fer tha
mrées, We have :10 hesitation to acme: ta) the
C0fiC}.11Si01§]. that in the case in hand, the High
Court has exceeded its revisimzai jurisdiction’ In
its revisienal 3fm°i$<:iic£:i0n3 thffi High Co
-M 5
call for and tzxamine tbs re(:ord–; ‘of ”
proceedifigs for the purpose of satisfi;i:’1g”‘?Ltself as
to the cornecmess, legality “”or– pm- p1°iety’T ‘of .
finding, sentence or order, inofiner x5mir::1S,*V.’i:he f
jurisdiction is one of Suficrvé-.s<3ry ;}'a1_1*:s:d1»:;tio;§§«._.
exercised by the High forTV.v:3£;I'.xit:cti11'g V
miscarriage of justiéc, ~-'But £115: said V-.rev;iSionéi1
power cannot be equa£cg,1 with thsf: f)(:si?er':§:3f an
Appellate Court nor Caz; t1'eaté(1-even: as a
sccrcmci Appeflaie .._ii1I'i_sci:1r;'ai,c}i:L_ Ordinarily,
therefore, it w{)::1;i.xiot§.be 'apyropfiate for £116
High Court to re<#a,pp.ré€:iat::«..V€izc§'v céridence and
come: toits owfi "<:mf1'&cit1s§c-Q n:1,t1i;e same when
the efaeié'e:t§%:c has; afieadyr" –b£:e,;;_f appreciated by
the as well ._asif;i3:1e Sessions Judge in
appeal} 21251633 éi;.*i§i§;L'<uj§ng*.,Afeat11re is braught to
the .1;t3til:i:t: of. "the; "':i;'__g11 which wouid
7§,a;'1£a1;§{;unt gross miscarriage of
j11::tice;–". ~.._ {)1::,_ "$<__;:11,1f.i.:1jzi11g the impugned
.Ji1r_igi11en*é <:sfV i:h.¢'T'§:iig*h Court from the aforesaid
s£and~poént",':.'w'c "'?;xave no hesitafion to come ta:
1:hé'~c<31x:lu:§i0;:: that the High Court exceeded its
' " jurisdicfidn in'interfe1i12g with the cmzviction of
__Lt':i:y:% z'esj3m<:a:i;.e:11t by re-appreciating the grad
évitience. The High Court also czammitted
'<._f'u:f11i:éz'–.cmnr in not examining sevcrzai ritcams emf
1 éviéej;z<:e' relied upon by the Additional Sessions
;.'!zir1–g:é5,; while confirmsing the conviction of the
I'(E$I§€}IIdE3Iii. In this View of the matter the
H " impugned judgment 0f the High Couxt is whoiiy
-ainsustaizlablc in law and we, accordingly set
aside {ha same.”
in the casa on hand, afier going thmugh the;
u judgments of cmxrts beiow witix rétfertrnce to evidence :31}
resend, i find that courts helm? have met cc: J itted glaring
{\). <
errors in appmciation of evidence. Tb.eI'efoz1z:;, jI
any reasofis to interfen: with ixnpugiicd. _i1:u:'figm_<–:<";:it.:v V"
9. It is seen that petition&:r__.was«V£e¢”§§1’tenQ§d. %,
punishable under Section It is ‘«_i:1:é;c§dl;9§;s to state
that an ofience ._V_.’E§TtfvE ‘sentence for an ofiencc
;)t1I1iS11a;?Z§iE:”V¥1I!#;:}L.:€f%’: in the result, I pass the
fOHOWiEg v:, . .
1 é§DER
113Clti?__:I;€13IfLSi0I1A:)<3?i.t§§f,*iii is accepted in part.
‘ T’£1e._v4§;en: téii1ee passed far an ofibncc punishabiae under
set asicie. The rest of the impugned
‘ jufiwént
u x V’ ., AA ‘ is dimcted ‘:0 send back the ioswer courts recazds
I» a cagy of this order’
Ed/”‘
jui¥3e
Bim.