High Court Karnataka High Court

Babu Philip S/O P L Philip vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Spp on 25 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Babu Philip S/O P L Philip vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Spp on 25 September, 2008
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH mum' OF KARNATAKA AT aANe;ga;;3éE[ % A

o.arr.=.=:> 11415 me 25*" my 0? swrsmggé;  ?  Q 
BEFORE        kk ' 
THE H€3N'BLE MRJUSTICE A&QHAi§3V..$Fh§NT:§N.,§6OU€§;§§*vVv 
CRIMINAL szgvxsxom P§1*:'rIQN §4:e.? 59/2905
BETWEEN: '  K ' '   
Baku Philip
s/o.P.L.P'.hi}ip

aged 4:3     
Driver«cumj()x&*at;.e:ifjV9f_ 'V ' L 4* "

Mammi £331' Né;'€}TD, 1151::  _
J.C..Hospi£al M   "

Arasikerc  '    

Hassan mstfic_:;' _ ' _  "  .. PETITIONER

4_ \' my sr:.i§:£snsatk~.n§aa:s Shetty for

 . 'srs. s.'vf.vshe=e;ty, Ads}';',)

:   *rhe':";:§te. of.Kg:~;4amka
 .Rep.by" SP1? ' "
 . ,  Comft Bufldings

 ' "  .'  .. RESPONDENT

f_i~B’:;k&%s:i~é.3a3a1a~:shna, HCGP}

.3-

This criminal revision petition is filed 13,r::<ti:er_4 i§ectiox1
39'?(2} C2r.P.C. by the advocate for the pctitio;1gzf*;.3ra;gi;*;g« mat
this §%on'ble Court may be pleased to set asirle that';-udgmcnt

and order of conviction and santence dated'?
in CC.N0.5?/2001 on the file of the JM?+'Q.,:~Amsi1<c1c_
judgment and (1-rder dated 1'?.'2;'2{§06« in Cri._.A._Pé0, 011.

the me cf the Add1.S_-.J. 35 P.{). 1;rrc;~,:;,

T iris criminal revisicin \::omi:1'é' for'j'}:n;;ar§;iig,
this day the Court made ti::3_ALfo1lowi1ig:_e ' ' "


9...r< .313
This revision'   the convicted

accused.     for the ofience

punishabla   " $O4--A of IPC and

Sectitm 18? 0f Maid:

%%2;’j’h¢j§%pf%:1;e pi-asécutaon in brief is that the
gyetitionés f.T’d§”iver of Mamthi Car bearing

I2?5?’§U4_”u. 1€:’}6;Adr9ve the same in a rash and

x11:1t}x1<§r..<)n 8.9.2000 at 9.30 pm. and dashed

' a§ga;ix;S_t'~__tf;€"dé<:eased Mariya Moses, what was going can

"the left side mi' the road naar P.P.Ci:rcle,

as a result of which, the deceased fell dawn

H

.33.

from his bicycle zmé sustained injuries to

body. The peti1;i<mer«accused after J»

accident, ciié net stitrp his veh§;Cié,"'but-.§:1r<:;'.r§ ' T A'

tcswards Banavara. Imme_diateiy__ afiigfir

injured was shifted to G0ii~e;:EI1J313€S and got marked 8 exhibits

a11r_¥._V one?1*:;§£:31″ia1 *0’bjéLct. PW. 1, is the father of the

A j3vhcf’ 16{ig*éd the complai11t at E}i.P}.. PWS-.2, 3

aiid witnesses to the incident. PWKS turned

is the pancha far spot mahazar. PW.6 is

\

AA the.’d§;§ctor Whfi {mated the deceased immediately after

acciéiant at Arasikere. PW} is the panczha ffii’ spat

maha-my relating to car. PWR8 and 9 are the palicze

eificials who are iiivciveei in the: investigatirin.

\p/’

-5.

Cr.}3′.C, reslating ta cssmsirzg the acCid6nt._f”Ifi:1:e

petitioner was irmecent, he would –~1’iEi*qé”–T.::d€f1n§te1y

explaifisd the cim1.m:1sta11<:eS:__ 0f éirscizigmt. '

Ntsthixrzg werth is elicited
PWS.2 and 3 50 as to 'd3_V€:ir" Both the
%urts below' are V the evidence of
PWSQ and 3»fQr ccmclusioxz. N0
error of the evidence by
tiifi re–app1"ecia'£i0I1 of the
mafigrial' –. does not fnad any error in
the beimv. Therefore, the

Orders of conviction are &:1tit}ed ts

% jjbc u.pi1:6idA.'"*

V__vi3. éL;€:Tarned czcsuns-21 appfiaring on behalf sf 'ihe

AA pef_§'€;is:{i1a;: submits that this is; the f;u"st ofience

" Cfifiimiiifid by the petitioizar, and therefere he may be

shown leiiiency. The $aié submjmion is opposed by thce

}<::a.1'11ed Govemment Piaader.

\»/'

. 6-

6. However, having regarci :0 the totaligi {3f the
facts and circumstances and as the d«<:cea§:»:?{i"~..§§;i:sQ did

mm': take precautions by fuiing the his

bicycie while travelling ch,1ri:1g..131ght_; (:Qif;$iti§i'éE{§

opi1"3.§,<:s1"1, interest ofjustice Wiii metlif pétitiéiéér is "

sentfinced ti) undergo
While daring 50, this 'Etc §:5I1sidera'€i0I1
the ccmduct of Smppiug the car and
in not " 'éte the drzceasecl

iniinedigztéiy .. zeazzciéeznt. Hence, the fcfiawixzg

order'"i§_3 ifi.ad3; " V " .

‘ n i)” ‘1’”1iéWj’i,&1Vdg111«:-;*.I:1ts and orders of co;1vi<::tion

'gassed by the Courts beiew am affirmed.

.~ AT The sentence impesed on the, p{:'{iti{3:1er–
amused is reduced to farm' Inonths fron1

arse year.

iii) Tha petiti0;1er-aacused is sentenced to
pay a firm 0f1~”€s.25,00€Z’r/– (Rupveses twfinty

V’?

iv)

five thousand oniy). In defaufii,” ”

petitioner~ac:cused shali

imprisonment for peziori .;0f””«§7Qur ‘~’

mamths.

In case of rece’¢e§?3.Ej~p_aynien:’ Qf
entire, amqunt of ..f1§;’1e_ S9 paici; be
disbnrsedv 1e;g.:ii”:?;e;*a:i’t:~ssgentatives of

the dec:easeg_1._ ‘ vv

Revisioifi is Ejféccotxiitagiy.

zudge