Sangappa @ Sangareddy S/O … vs State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sangappa @ Sangareddy S/O … vs State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
IN THE HiGH comm or KARNATA_Ké;""" ' i :f  J-L 

DATED THIS THE 218'? my c§'§'§_§'z;uLY_.:'2:'0ji;§3   
Bgmgg ._ I   .  ..
THE HoN'B;.E MR.q§;:€}fi§_1CE N';Am.}§§£'i3A:'fg

CRiMiNAL REVit3§C'N' r'%g1:*:fi'0%N'»§io~.70s err 2006


SangapI>a@ ?'.3ar1;7géIItd€i¥  V .'   
S/o. S}1an;1tI*e§§pa'V-E£;i}a1._V----..__    *
Age: 38   ' '   . 


R] 0. Shahapttr, T  Shahapur

Dist:ri¢.t_: Guliaaxga;  Pefitioner

{By Sri R"'a;a_s3mkm§ 2s.s;e'x:i,;".;xdvocate)


 ' ;Sta:e .;§t'«Ka§f§:ataka
'  Rap; )?3'y._Smw_ Public PI'€)S€C11t€}1"
fiigh  Building

fiafnga1o:rc§;';. ' .. . Respondent

 (By S:i S§ha1anabas$appa Kfiabshetty, HCGP)

This revisicn getitiar: is flied under smtion 39?' fix-RS,

 ;:>£*é;ying to $6': asidfi the judgment anfi order 85 etc.

This revision getition Coming on far admksion '$153 day, the

Court made the foE1r:3Wing:--


Ths petitioner was tried, convicted and

ofihnccs punishabls under secfimzs 2’39, 33′?

C.C.N(;>.233/1998, on the file c;£”‘A::a..1.« ‘ JM:F;C : atV:”1″és:1g.i:7. J

Criminal Appeal No.14/2081 V’

dismissed. Therefore, is V

invokijzg section 397 RC. .

There ar¢’L*qncu;rifiéfii: ifz.n§1i1;igs3 Court and the I««

appefiate ‘ if -~ V% h

1&2. :§*a,_fdeciis:§t;. géggoraed in AIR 1999 SC 981’ fin ihe

zigf. Sfirgie 9f«vK’éri21a Vs. Puttumana math Jathavedan

Snpxtme Court has helé:~–

V_ Oniixiarily, therefore, it wouid nest be
..駧pii§;31’iate for the High (301111: ta re~appre<:iate
__ thté evidence and some to its own canclusicn an
fhfi samfi Whfifi the eviciencg has ahead}-* been
appmcriated by the magistrate as W611 as the
Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring
feature is brought to the I1{)ti(L'Xi": of the High Com?


which would othezwise tantamount to
miscarriage of justice. O11 –1-

impugnad Judgmanit cf the High
aforesaid stand-poimt, we 1;a~’ve%;;oA 3;1§:si:t%i:j;§;1
come t9 the canclusion that High in
exceeded its j11I’iSdiCt]’0£!,_’i31
conviction of the mspdiirifint by

the oral evidence. High ./$330
committed it;§’:iunse} for pefitiener is absant. E have

* ;;1j;e:;aru’–. ;¢’a::;c& EICGP for the State.

A been fak:-in thmugh evidence ami imiaugned

_ V ju:§f1 ‘g::1i§1:;t.” ‘ V

AA The trig} C0131 on considmfatimz of evidancé anci

AAV’«:y’a;witnesses, smt mahazar atzé; IMV re1:)ort_., has held on


8908.199? at 8.39 p.m., petitioner being

Ambassador Car bearing No.KA–3_3.[.4578 ;ii’t}iie::’£i2e”‘<*.2::z*.Va'éV_Vau

high speed in a rash and neghgeizt n:a:mief,»._as jéi

went oi? the road and dasiied. near.

Gurmiikai 01:; Gmmit1§a1~Yadg:§f' _$';m anna, who
was travelling in 'eimple and grievous

5. A$..fier Inspector, accident
was ne1_;” failure. The fact that
accuefid ef’ the time of accident is proved
finm evidefjice as 2. The Courts below on

appfecizztion bf. §y6’f”§Vit13.3SS account, contents of spot

.A report have heki éue ta rash ans} negligent

__p.£§ti{;ioner, car went off the road and dashed

agaénsiifi “read side tree. Thereftaze, it is not possible to hem

*C€}_13.I’t$'” : below have committed any glaring errer in

‘ Gf CV151′ 811065; R’? (J”_,9/vsitv

injuries. In vifiw of this infirmity, c0nvicticn..~«x~:1fQe1jdé£i,_”E3y

Courts beiow for an ofience punishable

[PC cannet be sustained.

9. in the msuii, I pass:

The revision _part. The sentance
passed against . _p€tifI§(}§I:LiT; _ i'{§§\ » ‘fiunishable under

sfiction 2′?9 ;’,i_.'”!”4’C&3:;1;’i:’s*.’_:’»:=,v£’–asigié. sf petsiitioner for

an ofi:”nce. f1n5fiié;iLabie”–finds? ‘swaén 338 IPC is set aside.
The {fir hau ofiénw punishabk under

sscfssn 3V3}? éiixdévstxitrgxice passm thazreen


32%: ~ %

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information