IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BMGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY ore' MARQH
rant nu A 'I' 'l'j)'Ii'.'.'\\ rrorrnu _ n .-urn 1'»; 1 'ca. nrs ..»_-unnn: .
'La1\J. IIYILIJ IVHJVIDILJIV :I'I'J1l.l LP-.}1'!, "U0 1 I' 10' K)!' JCUUU
BETWEEN
Basavaraju, __
Sic': Shivara_iappa, ~
Aged about 24 years, ._ V
R/at Huxlasavgdi,
PI.I.r9.v2-.113.
MadhugiI*i'FaI£11.-at %
-------- : Petitioner
(By S.K;._-vV§1a1;atg"R¢ddy, Advocate)
AND!
statcpr :
Kodigc11aha1!3z..Folice,
4-in-n T3135
" rm '2 4-..:..+ . 1:)
' 1l.1Il"1la|.A£'Lf.|:BI..l1UL.' . n pun Lit
HCGP)
Criminal Rcvlsion.Pe__tition is filed under Section
ant: '...1..... ¢_1..., .tl!\'I r\.,-nra .....L....__--:..... 4,- .....4. ....:.-.1- 4.1....
\'.}".':l'Iv .l.~f'W' DEL-'1U1 '0-.-Alol."-\..). I.-U {REL EIHILIC LIIC
AA Judgillexlt and sentence passed by" the P.O., Fast
,'m=-.ck Court.-V, Tumkur, in Crl-.A.No.2/2004 dated.
30-9-2005 @ -_J1_1t1g,In_::4-11.. nd scntcnca: passed by the G,-_L
(Jr. D11.) JMFC., Madhugiri, in C.C.No.512/2001
" 24-12'-2663.
fix gxvtblrf-«'VL.
This petition coming on for hearing, fins"-.day the
ORDER
The petitioner accused
punishable under Section u 3
11nd rg_ SJ ..1′ LE Li’ .¢2s.50*J2′-
l.’A._ 1.
‘-1 c’r”‘n1t to si.:i1″‘ervf.-:’.,.I IO he “is for an
offence ptmishabledd under. IPC and is
sentenced tc*nnderi§’Ago for”si;:. and to pay a fine
of Rs.2,€)(i(j:!r.L,tomsii?feI*’ 8.1 for two months and
nflin nnwissl-n ‘Ia Lhldgn
‘ ‘l’ll’I£I n.
“.1.-25,.-., u um; um; uuunu.-u usumznulu
Section: cf the MV Act and is sentenced
topay d”~Vfinc.cf AI§’.s§5€:)0/- in default to suffer SI for a
A of ._l5 dVa’ys;”‘vThe substantive sentences are ordered
” by an order of cen1r1ct_ic_._ and.
<
3:
c
=:-
fi
c
3-:
:1
:L
g:
C’.
S
I:
1 dated 24-12-2003 in c.c.512/2001. The said
of conviction and sentence is afiirmed by the
I /Q-2%:/LcLL\l«L_
I
judgment dated 30-9-2005 passed by the
Officer, Fast ‘I’rack Coourt: V, Turnkur in
2. The brief facts of the on’
27-6-2001 at about 5-30 poo, so
road, the wit._li’ a
Trsiier bear-iii: No.’ he was so
driving the moo Ioy –‘.__thc land of one
Veembhadytagifio, on the mud
which he slipped and fell
d_I.x.m’ ” 2. 1+»: wbml of the vehicle 9….
sustifined and succumbed to the same at
the scene
prosecution examined P.W.1 to RW. 13 and
» 1 to P.9. P.W. 1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 are the
” A’ is the complairgant. 3;; eye ‘.’Iit-£15-_ L 1:-._ s.
V’ is-‘Ls gun on a—.3… -i;-n–. .. .u. ….’I’I’..-._
Euzuiduxt 311 qucatxuu. HI: ‘lino want it Vculug in Lu
iivitxxesses for inquest mahazar Ex.P.1. P.W.3
:3′
L
.. -mu.-g gun… . _. 4.1.- __.!
E
H Tractor-Trailor. He has deposed that the Tractor fvhen
2’-‘.Q,au.::~ua:…_”
was nearing the land of one Veerabhad1’appaj:’and was
being driven on the kacha mad due to the said
Thlmmaiah who was seated on the
‘I’rafler fell dean, came uu
P.W.5 Rangappa is ti1eV.£’at_heret_;v the He
stated he came to know amt the accident and death of
his son. the owner ‘of the
of W’ incident. P.W.’7
Ravikatoarde too has deposed about
the — by the petitioner/accused and
from the Trailer-Tractor and
31. ziétainefl
1 spot mahazar Ex.P.3. P.W.10 is also an eye
– fititnese§.”_trat?eifing in the Tractor- Trailer and he too has
the accident in question. P.W.l, P.W.12,
” P.W.14 are the persons who w_re _ra\_r_.11i1g in he
“fl’ra.cto.- suaufif, uusy ua”e r”t 5
(M1, I-‘angry ‘-1:
V prosecution and they have been treated hostile. P.W. 11
)nLQ§luLoLP: LL
K.S.Devarajappa is the Motor Vehicle klspecatezr, Who
inspected the Tractor and has furnished
E4
1 ru-to
mee’naniea’L defect. P.’\’:’v’. 16 i.s*«ihe-vv..fat.j;:e1′ of j
the accused. He has not xtineg the
prosecution and he has 1 Pm 17 PSI who
on receipt of the a case and did
e. tlm ire.’e*.1gatien–.v..j’- .’.*-‘{.’;18m um ‘v’v1
a ‘V
the eye witnesses clearly
estdb1isI1eeV’tt11at was being driven by
th_ , :.a.. k:_a..n_.a. re-9…, it was .9.-.r:’yi..g
1.-pcu 1 u -rran r 6f ‘Le TI”‘£’iCiiOI”. Not
»A Vjdenly other witnesses were also were travelling
– Thimlnaiah slipped from the mud
T’|t4j=««g-I59
heap:”e.s.v did not have any grip to hold, and he fell
filth har-
unae I~JI.An.al
R”
a
sa.
‘9-
E’
2.
3
E
5
E
3.
I
5
mastica-
V
1
1
I
E
F
V§injur1e’ s and succumbed to the injuries at the scene of
H accident. This evidence and the circumstance would
XQm.»LoL,t: cc_..
clearly establish that the tractor and trailer was on a
rough mad; due to the humps and as .. not
smooth and even the accident
petitioner/’accused. As such fl1e’*17ev’1s1on»’
to be allowed. Hence, the following:
The revision The order of
‘=”‘1″‘uu.i”1V_’*-nfizee the Courts below
convicting..V.V for the offences
VSe_c’}’téon C279 and 304A and 134 (a)(b)
r/W ‘ V Act is set aside. The accused
pej§t1tio…r 1.,” 93-“1’….t4…. of t..e came lweded against him.
.A furnished by the petitioner stand
._ Fine amount, if any paid by the
p§uuofier)accused shall be refunded to him.
. Shh/L
Sd/’-3*’
Fudge