The petitioner/accused is convicted for an
punishable under Sections 27 9 IPC and is
undergo S.I for three months; furl:he:fm1V1e is ” ”
offence punishable under Section 304;A E?C. is
to st for a period of six soflmoma so
Rs.1,000/- in default to soffer He is
further convicted for gmder Section
134(3) & (b), 137 offane 1MvooeA;;:g to pay a
fine of RS200/:_ by an order of
conviction and ” passed by the
JMFC 11 s1§im;@gai1:«s%ssjo.o.No.2251/2001. The said
order of coIé1§%i(:_1V:ionVVV ” is confirmeci by the
Court I, Shiznoga on 14-7-2005
i2.flI’a’:is éi of the prosecution that on 28-12-2001 at
_ 11;3Qta~1Vn., the accused drove the tempo trax bearing
in a rash and negligent manner so as to
human life. He was proceeding towards
B_i};1dravaflfi and While so proceeding he dashed against an
on coming motor cyclist and the motor cycle was hearing
X £tL»\t1.[!L_–
‘X/..
who
No.KA 14 L»-6556. It was one Krishnamurthyjjvas coming on
the said mater bikqbccause of the impact he fell
sustained grievous injuries and later on he
asccuscdl petitioner herein ran aWay…..fr_om %’the :_V ‘
occurrence without providing any to
and Without intimatjng the * L’
Later on complainant filc_d complz-;§i:;t ‘me who
registered a case under (3. forwarded the
FIR to the Court. ‘I&Ic=.,:l§isitt=>;§iVV’ mahazar and
recorded the after coming to
know about *§’;:i’– a charge sheet for
an offence 304A IPC and handed
over the P.W.8 CPI, who did part of
a change sheet.
3.: in support: of its case examined
= ” got.i;i:§;ff:.ri<cd Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. The defence of the
— waskénc of total denial.
4 ‘I’.R.Ran:1csh has deposed that on 28-2-2001
“ii-30 am. himself and Shivakumar were coming
X
on the main road and they saw a Hero Honda nxotoelbiulte
bearing No.K.A«-14-I-6556 was proceeding _
At that time, the tempo trax bearingMHNo.KA_- ‘v
driven by the petitioner/accused memt¢am¢%t i1i’- eff–.__
speed and in order to overtakes;
the extreme right side ef the against
Krishnaxnurthy who tttieltepposite direction
on the motor bilge, severe
injuries; one the place and
injured _ Nanjappa Hospital.
He has “petitioner ‘away from the
scene of
has deposed in his evidence that
p.m. himself and P.W.1 were near the
Veceneef they saw the Tempe Trax overtaking a
24. ‘~06
_I_o1*ry coming to the extreme side dashed
motor cycle on which Krishnamurthy was coming.
sustajmed severe injuries and fell to the
4: The accused petitioner ran away from the scene of
6. P.W.3 Venkateswara Rao has deposed”
2842-2001 he was in his house and in the
somebody came and informed him about ” ”
went to the scene of occurrence imm4ed%;ate1y.’*»._He_”s:9$¢i”oo*;I1iit:
tempo trax had dashed against’f11e__.mo£Gr v V L’
having sustained severe son to
Nanjappa hospital and _ 113 lwged 3
complaint with the Hospital
his son died. and also seized
both the ” ~ . _ _
7. has deposed that himself
and his fiiencle” =..:;e1=:=: He saw the tempo trax
5; and dashing against the motor
cycle’ @511… was proceeding in the
:5K__Qpposii:e a siow marmer. That the Tempo trax
_ #1 vehicle going ahead. As such it went to
right side and dashed against Krishnamurthy
V’ V-Who’ was on the motor cycle. ;;LM,_,g_ LL…
8. P.W.5. Shashidhara has deposed that his tfitiend
Krishnamurthy died in the accident. That
was going on his motor cycle and at that –.
came fi*om the opposite direction in
against Krishnamurthy, due; to vfizieil v
sustained severe injuries and fianjappa
hospital and on the way 1, » A H
9. P.W.6. Devaraj has he
saw the trax. He is the
owner of he had engaged the
services of me for dr1v1n’ ‘ g the tempo trax.
10. VP_,W.’? on coming to know about
t}ié”vaoci?ient-eat. noon on 28-2-2001. He visited
3ios:::i’fl3Ll%:V'”:eeorded the statement of the father of
j””–vvihe anti a case against the accused herein
nIa1:er” came to know about the death of
V He registered a case under Section 304A.
over further investigation to P.W.8 Basavaraj who
after completing the investigation filed charge sheet.
/qQWwf1sL…….