High Court Karnataka High Court

Manjunath vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Manjunath vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2008
Author: R.B.Naik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, B_Ai§G;§ LQRE
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF  e H

 

S /o Vasudeva Rao Marne,    .. . 
Aged about 34 years," " *  '
Occ: Private Service, H V     _
R/o Hosalli, Talukz HoI1na}l}i_,"  3 ~ '
Dieuiet:  e ~    

AND:

The State' of  " "

By S11igg&onvvPoiice'$ta.tion,
Hagveri, »  " ' '

 by State Pub1ie«Prosecutor,

V ' ' C ' " ' . I O
«  "3-L". 11'-.3 ._Bu11d1:1g,

  evvfiangalereseeep 00 1.

(By srj; Ia;e.An,iana1nurthy, HCG-P.,)

: Petitioner

: Respqndent

 'i'1:1is Criminal Revision Petition is filed ufider Section _

 V3>9"?i and 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside thfeadudglllente
 and sentence passed by the Sessions JudgeT;Have1'-1111
L Ecr1.A.No.21/2005 dated 1-8--2005 and Ju'd§mf:11t and
" " sentence passed by the C.J.{dr.Dn.} Er.  '$1_-iiggaon,

in C.C.No.46/2004 dated 7-2-2005.

;.' \.





» ;Rs_,V1,():0£) defauit to undergo S.i for

This petition coming en fer hearing, ._d:.;_iy the
Court, made the following ~ '-- 1 
ORD
Th" petiticner,' accused is c.....i:.ed --r  cffeiice

punishable under Section_;?»(i4Av'ii"f_t'i'V.a11d  :11 -need "u L?
undergo S.I for six months    
in default to suffer   . .ti1reeiI1enth$; he is
cci1vic.ed -01" an  Section 337
IPC and   :i:Liii'fGi"";f.131'€€ 1301715118 and to
pay aviine  defsult to under go 8.1 for a
period oi'  _ he is further convicted for an
offence'   Section 338 IPC and is

. one year and to pay a fine of

three nienms by

H  .. 'conviction and sentence passed by the

Sessidvnshv 4fJudge, Haveri, dated 1_--8-2005 - passed 

it ~ C11'i,iA=i§e,2 112005 while modifying the O1'd6I_' of conviction

Tmd srntenee p-"ssed by the Civil cddde f-.I1:.Dn} 31- JMFC1,

WE

Shiggaon dated 7-2-2005 passed in C.C.N

"D" \

_.

9.4672004

{} /\. Eu
2': :g_sLvuw~--



2.'I'he brief facts of the prosecution ease "mat on
14-5-2003

at about 6-30 p.m. the petitioner;’zi.eeu__eeciV’Was

driving the ear be_J:’_ng No,I{_A-14l3.3QfiVV. are i’
dashed the car against aV.stnndiiigV_’tree Ieff; Siid-eiof
the road due to which the iviihnnates of cegr sustained
grievous injuries. ‘ Reniaeliandrappa who had

-=d<d~.;=..;m the course of

3

PI” – tr=’ve’uu”1g ‘ 1 th” s”‘d

1
‘r.

,’ o.n’ivfi1eA”date of the accident. He in his evidence has

H had gone to Hubli in the car referred to

above” which was driven by the petitioner] accused herein

J10 uI1’1_;11 H15 dggga. gd Fnmncbnnflrnnpa anti ;1_:_rQ QH151′

I-I59:-Ga v-4. .n. u. .4 sh.-no.5;-us 4.1-un.a.w|.nsA.1J I..«I.L4.\.s I.-.I.J.

“persons for negotiating a marrlag’ e and after compiefing

the negotiations they were returning from Hubli at about

‘T

6 pm. in order to go to their native place. the

petitioner] accused who was driving the car of

requested by the ir1f1ia”s of 1’:he_ca1f_1’1o.t ‘to “go speed’—-.

but he did not listen to there.

the car against a standing of the road
at 6-30 p.n1. P.W. sex,~§=g§e .iI1ju:vies_ to his legs,
chest OW’ “=”=’ .+ ‘=”d_.’=~~=–. “”””.i’-‘1″it Hosp’tal.

Police his statement and
theregf@- Hospital, Hubli. P.W.2
Nagappa witness to the mahazar Ex.P.2.

U er the very “paj1ehai.:aIn_a the ear wa… seized.

‘ ;5=.P;”l1§.’f.s.3H,AV4;”5, 6, 7 and 8 are all injured persons

aeeidevntvl’ They have consistently sta’ted__ that the

AA petiiiozier/accused was driving the car in ahigh speed.
have also stated that the petitioner/accused was

% ‘V Vlcautioned and asked to drive slowly and even then he was

go: n

((_(..J—-au *

P Q{‘(‘i Pnf H9 urns: urn or i inh tani’a=a=rVi’~VV” H-‘a”i”I’n:’:”‘

-w’ ‘ass. ‘.5. us ;;.\a vu -4.3-.a afiflvlflvb a.L.I. :..LJ.&|..n~~-*._._- l!|_;_\_”

driving the vehicle in a high speed and while so dijivihg he

dashed the car against a standing tree on of

Ex.P.2. He also prepared a=s_1_<etch= per He"
recorded the statement of _injured'- and he
also collected '*of.:t1'1e injtired from the

hospital. F-..ax.P.V3 r..x,r¢a1..s_ at 'ithepiace of occurrence

the road

6. It.”

“en be._§;;if”of t-.e petitioner that the

accident has occfijI1’ed_:iViain1ediateiy after a e”
called as Jekixiakatti Cross and that on either. side of the

road t~her’e._are stops and on the date of the accident

\ wim bi?’

th.. ip.assehgerisL1n0aeti’ down fi*on1 the tempo suddenly

cre__ssed~ . re-“6 and L6 avoid me impact the

pefitioIier/ accused having no other option but to take the
to the extreme left side and because of the same it

traversed on the mud portion of road and it went and hit

/o’LQM.2tc1.’\JJL._

.e .199… i__ shiggoan. P.W.9 is a Po1ice~.,_ofi_icer

the standing tree and the accident was not duefto rash

and negligent driving of the petitioiier/accusf.eti;_g’ielaltso

vehicle was being driven azgihighr
vehicle in a high speed isV.I1e_it11er”:faSh not}: act
and on the basis of this a1’guinent, the i1eaI’Ii;.ed counsel

submitted that the for an order of

rIn.II1-1+ n :\11rrrrn.:II”-:1-$1-I I-urn:
as :.A.\,.«.l.t..1.xu’ nu ptuuvy, L at B -‘

been ‘made to fiittiesses that the person who got
down. the temifxoiitiied to cross the road and to avoid

V. – gtheflnefitiener drove the vehicle towards the left

en’ ,nd 30 it went and -_it the Lee, Tilt.

inade to the “witneeee h” reiinaine “e ne a
..sn_ggeetion. Few of the witnesses have stated _that no
has attempted to cross the road anti jsuddenly

in between. But P.W.3 and P.W.4 have specifically

/Q2,Lu\ct.PJr<—-

stated that the petitioner was driving the vehicle rash

and negligent nianner. P.W.3 has denied the of

a person crossing the road. Likewise

establish that a person tried_ to cross the pI’-“€}.’:.f11 sut1de:.u3i,

and to avoid the impact withltheiisaid peifsonv-lthiegpetitioner
drove the vehicle to tlieleft ‘road xbecause of

the seine accident occurred, i

the first appellate Court

.*nedi.’V_;;..g = senteiace w£:1s”‘– justified iI1’_1’1_C__)_1fi1iI1g the

petitioner ‘oi’ ~f’*’e .. _ln_”1.eces p n 11′

304 _A_, 33’7″However, regarding sentence, the

S V’ _ Courts.’ asxHW’eii’V as the first appellate Court have

iinposed.V_’iseiitence of one year for an ofl’ence’p_t_1nishab1e

A1 ‘ ‘___ _-;..u.:…..

and theisame requires interference in me rev1s___1_ri T ,u .11.

Hence, the following: }n’l.Q1—u.t«u.LL._Q

-_I—-

ORQEE

The revision petition is partly allowed. of

{J – ix ,

confirtned. The sentences Vifl14poseCi._V_hy

modified by the first appefiate offences

punishable under IPC are

.’.

punishabie4.1.%nde.§r’ Sectioi; Vviséet aside and” in lieu
he is se11te1aged1″«I.9_undefs;o a period of six months

and to pay ‘L000/– in default to ____undergo S.I

for three”=Inont1*is, sentences are ordered

parsed by the Courts below

“_…… a. ‘he… ‘
(Q1111 ‘DOD ‘z._1I”LrV A1’-‘5