Cri.R.P. NO.9i%_f§[2006
,1-
N THE HIGH COURT cm' KARNATAKA AT BANG.tg.m§§VE'__'__%- "
DATED 'THIS THE 241% DAY 01:' JUNE V "
BEFORE V _ _ V'
THE HONBLE MRXJUSTICE A.é;EAC§?IHA15:;._1éE»V 2 "
cr1.R.P.No.V92_%§i~:2Qo6." V V V'
BETWEEN
KRISHNAMUR'i'I~iY S/O KADANNA _ --
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS «
R/OBOLURU, NEELANDUR VILLAGE. _
SRENGERI 'i'ALUE{, _ _ - '
CHICKMAGALURlI)i$'I';":2I(:'"1'}_.' 2: '.v;..I%?EfTi'I'IONER
{BY SR1 S MAHESH 35» RI '*193':§£§GE1f5D?€é_;}1§V$~}-- '
AND -------- M ' V " 1
HMRAMAKR1:SHN_A- V V _» v
3/0 H A RAMA'i§R!S.}IN:'-1_BHA"?}Z'A' n
AGEDABQUMQ XEARS "
RfO.NEELANDUR v1_Lm_Arg, "frag comm' MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order of acquittal of the
L””«._§é:époncient for the offence under Sections 279 afid 337 1130 on a
txiai held by the JMFC, Sxingeri. Dé
Cr1.R.P. NO.92-412006
-2- 4
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this _
under: L. K T b
The petitioner herein ; (‘PW}_1}..: “avast «V
complainant before the Trial and fathef. s
(991.2). 11; is alleged that on 27.ie.§eo4, .é1’t~.Vatt)o;§;1t;{.t,’Vst§ p.1}1.,
Ashritha (PW.2) met with an ae¢me.fite%emggmud dfosdddsear Bolur
Village and it is alleged that ‘ due to the
rash and negligent. 1vNo.i{A.2O/M.272.'”3
driven by the Astnitha (PW22) was
taken. to the ” and was treated by the
Doctor (Pw.?e), who certificate (Ex.P.3). The ASI
(PW .7) registered filed by PW. 1 and sent the
to the Magistrate. The statement of
‘A«wetee<t_feco1t1ed and the investigation was held by
'fits saahazar Ex. 19.2 was held in the presence of
PWs.5 6."'~v:f3.'1ie.Vvehicle was examined and the report E)-:.P.5 was
The chazrgesheet was filed against the respondent
'offence under Seefions 229 and 337 IPC for rash and
V _ Vt negiigeet driving and causing injuries to Ashritha (PW2). Suns' g
tria}, PWs.1 to 9 were examined by the prosecution and the
Hddocuments Exs.P.1 to 13.5 were marked. The statement of the
A
Cr1.R.P. NO.92_4{@06
-4- ” to
12 years at the time of the accident. The (P’_\?’.?.=?¥}
examineé and he has issued the injm’_g-‘éeriiieate (_E§§;~.e.’i*1..3)t,’–..e’3:.e’e:~..1 J
reveais that the injureet was seen by tee
29.10.2004 at 12.45 pm. i.e., efiee e§;}’e..e1aye’ “of_the_aeeié1eiii:;’ “Apart” V
from the delay in lodging gee e;;>1::,t.V$}sLi1:it;..eA_the’1eA ‘is. e deiay in
approaching the Doctor for ‘:iV§tee.’.txeatment. If really,
311 accident had the injuries
on 27.10.2094, to the hospital
after two eomplaint for rash and
Bgggggem d,.g.._,mg,_A 1 to -show that the delay has been
taken to e.eeeeeeege.e;.te.e[ “ee’ee{p1ainant/ pw. 1 and it may be
that the ‘xfeSpo;1det1t~vhasV” been taisely implicated by the petitioner
by sz)1::.i:te_.material.
E3. ‘Ftlrtheifzzzore, even as regards the filing of this revision
V7__&pe’.itio;J,, the order of acquittal was on 8.9.2005, the
.1 to be filed on 19.4.2006 and particularly, after
of the notice dated 8.3.2006 by the accused. to the
‘ caliing upon him to pay the compensation of
“”‘v.R’e;’25,ooo/« for faise impiication in a. crime, it is after the receipt of
this notice dated 8.3.2006 from the Iespondent, the petitioner flied.
/.
Crl.R. P. NQ924 1 2006
-5-
this revision petition. Looking to the material on
angle, it appears that a false case was f11¢§ u
anti the Trial Court on appreciation of
xéghfly acquitted $316 I’f:Sip0I1d€i1t,5 %,
under Section 401 Cr.P.C.., i do overlook
the finding of the Trial comt}:4_”~<rhc V;i§"'devoiclvV'AbfVAv1:11eIits and
it is dismissed accozdiggiy.
JL