High Court Karnataka High Court

B V Raviprakash @ Ravikumar vs State By Alur Police Station Alur on 18 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
B V Raviprakash @ Ravikumar vs State By Alur Police Station Alur on 18 November, 2008
Author: Jawad Rahim


§

2?. we irééi ceurt has examined these aspects and
recerfied a finding cf mziit which has been affirmed an re-

appraisai by the first appeiiate court.

8. E finfi no reaéon ta ifiterfere with the .-am

The first amzueiiate court hag ai§<';*.~:-':':'e'§'ts:-.~=d '_tii=. at'.acV9::¢::.':;*5;eé'–VA a

£136 firivera the vehicie at hie}: s::2e:§é__x¥§–§1§iih ##3##

because he was reversing tfié vzefiiszie. 'Tag 's;§.t§.:_":§ éfvvébciéént " '

is said is be within prm:i–r:jVate dis§a r}:sé'*ef thé' bus: sfand and
naturaiiy arm."vfi'e.L2v£{% ;-:%~;§ifié¢:.«__fé:er*:f:mu§:er$ »t§ be prag»-.-ant at that
spot. Tiva..VTa_éf":a;_§'eE£1:;,§<.r:e*:§%' ia.p:c§§raphy cf the piace, yet

-firove ihe géfianner which unfarturzateiy

resuited in”dg1at§1Vbfa’é§f;é §afson. The finding $1′ the triai

‘ceur%t4é:;nVdL’\first a ;:;:=eiVi§t_e.c9urt, needs rm inteiference.

._”§’.3?x e.;:’«:»..A§f’:¥:&__if:tim’: that there has ta be ssrcof reaarfiirzc

§ re:w;s”S’–.i1aH§VE§é.§f:.r:§é’érzay net fie aapiétabie tc the facts sf this

gcasef 3 E*.If’fi €GfiSC§0i.i$ cf the deciaierx cf the age): ceurt in

&kTcasekof JACGB HATHEW ms. sure or pawns a.

rerwrted in MR 2095 so: 3183 where the apex

siéiirt hag {maid that ‘in fiffiéf ff: sustain the charge under

0%”)?//.

imsrisorzmersi far 3 term which may extend ta Six marzths G!’
with fine which may extend ts fifié ttwusand rupees, and fax?

any secrmd or subfieauerst czfiérsce if ccmmitted within.–t_hree

‘years of the cammissicm cf 3 tareviaus simiiar t’3ffE£’!:’2V:¢é :i;’a£ifV’5:v§fa

imarificrzmeni for a term which may extend in yé§ a’r§;

with fine which may extend its twe f3:’i’i'<'§t;i3a:f_1¢:"_."r£1_ :':=at=_i-f'.¥.VS, ?.;:}r–$3s*it§*;–, V'

bath. Theréfere, the séctier: indicafé_”:_1s”‘~–i*,’ci”‘human ” V

fife. Sectianfl d_étiS “V”i’nv5ked when as 3

csnsequencé..§f’isfi:’;h §an §ére§’$”éri§§!fi’§ death is caused.

19. the fimsecution case iacks

any graaf éf~:;i3i;:>a:§ieuhefiiéfierxce af the ériver. {in the sthar

»-.’_vhanr_:i’,~i.sjL;}:?2eviéérrcefias saeiled Gilt GVEIT acts of the

‘–._a:::tu3e§–v.i’zi~%firi§ir:g the vehicie at high fipeeé , ignoring the

zéraséfice ‘ é”z_’g_ Qsiéfitamers, autarickshaw and aisc ether

‘.§eéé4éi;:%i§r’2._s. This is a case cf cufiaabie negiigence. The trial

..jje:§Vur’i;4.i7a%”riahtiv heir} him auiity’.

ii. ‘ H Hewexéar, warned caumei for the Détifiéfiéi’ urged to

féfiensider the erder féééfdifié seraterzce. He minted oat

aw

§

that the triei ceurt has irnpesee imerieenment of one veer
for the efferzce under Sectien 304-A, three mentee fer the

effenee under Section 2?9, 3:16} fff-tear: days fer the_4.eféFeer;e

ameer Seetiefis 33′? and 338, LEE. He s;z:’§r:’r*:”%’¥1.:..i._’-.v«V-‘-..%:*.;V¥.’:e;_’*_

sentence is ten harsh, whiie the ieernee HCG?*’e4;ij§zee%9ts«–the” ‘v

sefitemte.

:1. Keeping in mine whet’~v..}§’ee ee’ee.’u:eeéVV”‘–;e’fie sjthe ‘V

circumstances in whiehv rf5f;é a:;e’fiSé_§ ‘i’ee._pEaceé”*-end} taking
rsete ef the fact teat the .;:-i&r”:isi§4’i’:°:av*:e_;%g:1:’V:.i;«re’s:f;r§i::ed fer the

effence under, V’ “eet rrzarsdetersiy

iffibfifiéfivfifiéiit biJ’£’Vfi’iee”eeiveegas’ ebeerveci by the annex ceurt

in Jaaamsfi ‘cVHfi:§ti}VE§: :y’s} STATE 0!’ new: reported

__an fiIfij i§?3 st A2127 fihet if the ‘triai has preienaee fer a

weuie ea erstitied ta exemetien frem

i:r%;eé’e§tie”e 7e~f._1eee’Eeece ef imrxfisanment arm in such casee,

.imee§’i%.iee effifie wouid meet the arms ef justice. in the

“‘.’A4″”V.%z;§eeeent eéee. the tetai eeriee Sllefit frem the time the

feted triai tiii new ie ever 12 yeare. Aeeiyirze the

T –:e ‘ee§’d deeieiera, the eeetence cf irmirriseement eeeie be eerie