IN mg HIGH cam? OF KARN;x*:’;§1{gs;« _ %
cxrecurr BENCH, GULBARG/3′ W i 1′ * T 5 – % .. _
Datw the 29th day ofmgust %2gg;3-A
:BEFogE;? J%___
THE HoN’BLr: MR.JU3TI._§3E a:.{m c3A;*sIr¢.4¢;*;*::1,A.1#r %
CRIMINAL REVISION No} :%e2gN,?¢oo4
BETWEEN: % kq
Ibrahim Pasha, _
sxa Mahabwb
Age: 41 years, Q'<:c:.fi;g'izr:11iturit:. , "
Chittapum 'Fa!'-nlk, G1.1I.barga__ _£)if:;%;rict
""" 5' 7' ' ' . Petitioner
'[435' *R.Naik, Advocate. )
Am):
” __ The ‘State of
, by P.S.,
Wits State Public
‘PI”:2sm:.’;te:i:*,. Court of Iiarrlataka,
B¥a;}gal£.%I~’€_{
” . ‘ .. .R3smnd3::1t
” * By Sri Subhash Mallapur, 31.0. 3.9. ;
Cmirxai Revision Ffietition film under Section
” 3g7{3; of the Cr.P. C. praying ta mt aside the order of
convictian and sentenm dated 21.2.2004 passed by
the R0, Fast ‘I’ra<::k Court-4!}, Guibarga, in CrI.A.No.
11/2001 and the gucimmt and order of conjrzéfign
and sentence dated 30.1.2001
J.M.F'.CI., Chin<:ho1i,1'n (3.C.N<:x. 7}1/1995'-.ani1:"a§:q1;:it..u
the petitiozxer of all the chargcfs"i€:1.*r:I1ezfi
This revision pefifion con:i':ing'~:)r: forvE;:e{'a:ifig::';tiiis L.
day, the court made the fbijbavirlg E . '
RFD A
y «……-
This revision against the
}uéti.iri’oner for the ofibnces
pun;shaia: ¢::z1{ief 2?9 and 337 of the I.P.C.
Wa$ c’o13f1rméd ~-z§§3;i__’the sentence was modified by the
mum by ordering that in respect of
under Sections 2‘?9 and 33′? of the
V .V §’F’..€3¢? ‘:é¢r§:énce of three menths would be sufiiciant
‘ : a;s’}r;;} sentence is calied for in respect of
–‘ jéi-.§§§}iAA0ne 0f the aforrzsaid aflhnces. The other part; of
T ” Wt’.’f’1e sentence passed by the iris} court”; was confirmed
by the lower appeilata court
.35?
2. The case 01′ the prasecutien, in brief,
effect that 011 214.1995, complainant
with his colleague, was iI1«”锑Vis:;r3le£§l1{;:art V
and when they came near ,_
driven by the petition;ér’.V11erc’¥:’z’1a cam’ <é: the " V
opposite side in a rgsh .hiamue§%g/nd hit
the bullockwcart one of the
bullacks died_,fi_1e the persons
in the and one of the
perSc§;1$,V succumbed to the
ifl}1:d'i¢s.–. given by the said
Nagapfiégthgvé fed to the filing of the
cfi§;rge?she§f" thti': petifioner for the ofiences
Sectiens 279, 337, 333 and 304-»;
3. the petitioner pisading not guilty to the
A “:}:”‘cI1:.§{‘1ffg;e, the prosecution led the evidence by
” P.Ws.1 to 23 and producing the
documents as per Exsfi-1 to P40 and M.0s.} to 5.
The petitioner dfiflifid every incriminating
5/
5
4. The learned counsel for me petitiencr Smt.
Vijetha Rfiajk, referring :0 the evidence on
submitteé that though nummr of ‘
been examined, all those WiEl’l€SS6S _
speed of the vehicle driven
they (:16 not speak ab:)uT’::._tl1c ,
driving of the jeep by t.21e”v f£=;jVi}iti.;§I1eV:; tiigexefoze,
the triai C{3″L1I’l1 was th <§:'AAta:;$ti111ony
of the eye–wit11esse$,.a{ 1_c@i.. of the
appellate fie very same
reas£3;1s;. that the S.H.0. was
not exfifizigzcd Jthe LO. Raiying on several
it "s:11:;q3_:;iited that non–examinatieri of the
% it). –.2;f;::s:.ss:«..:¢'a1;sed prejudice to the gwtitianar and,
"fi:ereféI€,j judgflerzt ef canviction of the trial mutt
..tf:§ fiffirmaticn 9f the same by the lavsver appellate
V' :f * ic;ao*urt camist be sustained in Iaw in the face of the
§iax%} Eaid down by the Apex Ceurt and also by our
' fiigh Czmrt. Tilt: rulms refemww ta in this wand are
the ones reprorted in 2008(1) Crimas 145, 1986(1)
E/'E'
ex:-Lmm 299, 2002(3) K.C.C.R. 1953. and 1972%
245.
5. On. the other hand,
Pleader for the State Sri Su_¥:)haV§i1A *’
the judwent of the trial 1.: h§eVVlVoWer
appellate court by véifiéAVV11I1111¥3er
of eyewvrimessgs to {hey were also
the person;-;; -.—£;’:ie accident and,
therefore; Said eye-witnesses
ceupyjléja the Motor Vehicles
Insioéfiiér’ the: rash and negligent
drifiviqg of jeéip £116 petitioner and, as such, no
.’ V. * is for against the judgments of the
A =- Vi:-3u:fé;~$ .
6. .. thus heard the submissicns of both
V’ nfiidfifls, I have carefully perused the judgments ef the
<g?:o1.:.rts beiciw and also the avidence on record.
7. I3 order to establish the rash and ngligana
drivixizg an the part of the petiticmer, thus prosecution
3/
“VJ
£0
shall take necessazy steps in this regard to
presence of the petitioner and his
tharefore, stands cancelled.
ckc/ ~