IN THE HiGH comm or KARNATA_Ké;""" ' i :f J-L
CIRCUIT BENCH AT_G1.I§_,_BARGA" =35
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
BETWEEN: V
SangapI>a@ ?'.3ar1;7géIItd€i¥ V .'
S/o. S}1an;1tI*e§§pa'V-E£;i}a1._V----..__ *
Age: 38 ' ' .
Gee:
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:--
2
ORDER
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 ./$330
committed it;§’:iunse} for pefitiener is absant. E have
* ;;1j;e:;aru’–. ;¢’a::;c& EICGP for the State.
A been fak:-in thmugh evidence ami imiaugned
_ V ju:§f1 ‘g::1i§1:;t.” ‘ V
AA The trig} C0131 on considmfatimz of evidancé anci
AAV’«:y’a;witnesses, smt mahazar atzé; IMV re1:)ort_., has held on
w»J§b»~:%~»4~
8908.199? at 8.39 p.m., petitioner being
Ambassador Car bearing No.KA–3_3.[.4578 ;ii’t}iie::’£i2e”‘<*.2::z*.Va'éV_Vau
high speed in a rash and neghgeizt n:a:mief,»._as jéi
went oi? the road and dasiied. near.
Gurmiikai 01:; Gmmit1§a1~Yadg:§f' _$';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
Sd/”‘
Iuéqe
32%: ~ %
