High Court Karnataka High Court

Thimmaiah S/O Mulabagalappa vs State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Thimmaiah S/O Mulabagalappa vs State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2008
Author: R.B.Naik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALCJRE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY 01? Jumgtaosstt    _
BEFQRE M :jgC[" t 
TI-IE HONBLE MR. Jus~1'1<:%: R,B.% N:§IKtj   é %
CRIMINAL REVISION f'§J}'YP}:QN.'_':sIC§. 1969 %

BETWEEN

Thjmmaiah, V  .

S / 0 Mulabagalappa,

Aged amut 37 years,

Agriculturist,   .  - _ 
R/0 MuniyaI1aha11i'Vi1iag¢,    
Vcmgal Hob1j.,:-.Koi;a"r_.Ta1:1k:, _ _.- if .
K0131' District.      '-- A

V : Petitientsr
(By  Agvo¢a;:c;
Am:   t V t    

State of  
Vemg;ai'I?(;1icc,  . _ V' V

 V.  " «  _____ .. W

    : Respondent

my Additional S.P.P.,)

Ti1§S1~ Criminal Revision Petitien is fled under Secfion

. .39.?-Cr.F’;C praying ta set aside the Judgment and order cf

‘ “‘tha_P’g_O., Fast Track Court-11, Kola: in Cr1.A.No.32/2002

20-»10–20{)5 and Judgment and order of the

C.t?}.(Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Kolar in C.C.No.1-43/1999 Dated
” 1045-2002 and acqtfit the petitioner.

U\

This petition coming on for hearing, this day the Court,
made the following:

ORDEE

The petitioner/accused is coz1victg;;;_”V?f9.IV.v

punishable under Sections

undergo S.I for three months _andV4fo_:pay f-,
he is convicted for an offencé ‘1:.v’;:;I);£i{‘:I:Vf§S(‘,LV(V’3tiOI1 338
IPC and is sentenced’sixvv fr1é)VVnths and to
pay a fine of Rs.AV1,O0O[.-.a;r§d convicted for an

offence and is sentenced
to undérge arid to pay a fine of Rs.1,{){)0/-

in default” 3:0 1,;rid1:.’;;’.’g0» for three months and all the

, ‘sentciaccs are éfdfilffidv to run ccmcuxrently by an order of

.__sentcnce dated 10-5-2002 passed by the

.i.:a»i;F;C;%,’ in C.C.No.}/13/1999. The said order of

_ ‘.§:onvif:ticfI2:_ sentence is canfxrmed by judment dated

V’ 16-20V05 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track.

Kolar in Cr1.A.No.32/2002. }39″–*°*i*€—-»

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 18-“.’t.S’_}’1.99′?’

at about 7-30 am. the petitioner being the _

Tempo bearing NO.K.A 07/2534 was »C1I’iVi.1′.ig’

A.II).Cok:ny, Narasapur in a rash sad

while so driving the tempo, heV__&ashea-house

P.W.3 Yellappa. Due to the }:&_a1a.g3..B:1:i’pQ;Jféchfld and
Mam: @ Manohar Lsies and died at
the scene of who was along
with the also sustained

injuries i1*s~..e_Vaeeié:e.nt~ t

3. in” support of its case examined

P.W.1 E3xs.P.1 to P.’?.

‘ *4, ‘;, “Chinnamma has deposed that she was in the

he1’ise”~et; her son and she was feeding her grami

aged about 7 years and Manohar aged about 6

‘ arid While she was so feeding the childzen the tempo

V’ ‘tlrijgen by the accused came in a high speed and dashed

V against the wall and entered the house and ran over the two

children. It also ran over her legs and caused injuries

Because of the injuries sustained by the two they

died at the scene of occurrence itself.

5. P.W.3 Yeliappa has depcsed*e2at.§oni arms

accident at about 7’o clockiie Ito’
with milk and he saw xiby the
accused/petitioner hefein a_1’1d_ A speed in
A.D.C01ony and it of the house. It
also dashed ‘Maia and Manohar.

They died at the scene of
that the tempo Went
over t1″xe”3e;gsV<)f too had sustained injuries.

naneh witness for the tnahazar.

»A _V€).}%.’i.1I.’EiiVdfE{1fishnappa has deposed that on 18-6-1997 at

shei1t.t’7V3¢’ the morning he wanted to accompany

‘tikfaganfaj divas such he had been to the house of Nagaraj.

told that Nagaraj was taking bath and so he was

near the house of P.W.1 and at that point of fime he

‘V V the tempo being driven by the accused herein coming in

a high speed and dashing against Chinnamma and the two

fi,£;w.c2i*£—

Courts below that the petitioner is guilty of theV’eo:fi’ences

punishable under Section 337, 338 and 3045.

call for interference. Even the sentence for .335

does not call for interference. Howetiefl

sentence for the offence pmiishahle ntider, 3VQ<i»A
the leamed counsel fog'. the that the
petitioner is married and children to
maintain and solely dependant

on the earniiiszs he the ,__1§etf.ition'erV _ herein. It is further

submittedi—Vthati_V"the;:_: ineidenté' is—of"§ the year 1997. At this

length of._tiine V V4fi~;§….% fioner behind bars does not

serve any He regrets for the incident which

; ' ._ V' 'L '
'was E of controls and it 'lad occurred on account of

~ Looking to the over all facts and

the ease, I too fee} that the sentence for the

VV._ 'offence Section 304A is harsh and excessive and the

'ifeqtlires interference in the present revision petition.

hence, the following: rQuF«'~'/'v"-*-':""""'

The revisien petition is partly allowed. Th§:~~ of

canvictian and sentence for the offence p1133:i'sI:aijixé' "%'a..z.'1V:f'1df:::'*'_

Section 337 and 338 {PC is ' 'i;§;=;;a:.VV:(*:'i'*£;1ei~~_VA

conviction of the pfifiiiéiifii' far the 3:'
Sectkrsn 3049; is also wBi1t: h@v.mx;Vef'1?,
imfiflsed for the said f£3f1'.enC£%V'"'isgA. A é11d"' lisu the
flfititioner is sentellced S.:i six months and

to pay a fine pf Vundergo 53.1 for 15

days. The sjéinf_enc¢§'shafl run concurmntly.

Sd/-

Judge

-9-ua.nnd–.d—-