IN THE HIGH COURT 0}?' KARNATAKA, BANGALORQWT DATED THIS THE 4% DAY OF JUNE 2003A&%%a V BEFORE . ma 1~10m3LE MR. JUSTICER.'B. NAEC: « BETWEEN Shaina Rae Shakale, S / 0 S1.:bbojiRao, Aged about 40 years, s _ ; Rfat N0.1'78, Nagade:vanaha1Ii,~l V " Grananbharathi Post, V - Bangaiore. (By M13 13 & s Aasioémeg % V . . . . ll ~_ ' State of bggf I" . Kcngcri Traffic ' __ " : Respondent
(By.Sri. )
V Revision Petifion is filed under Section
397 ffw-[‘401-C:?,F.»Ci.=13rayi11g to set aside the Judgnlent and
V’-.__()IV’dCI’ of 1116: Cityf’E’ai$t ‘Prack{Se-ssions) Judge, Bangalore City
(F.’§’.C.Nd;–VI).-._’ii1-.Cr1.A.No.311/2005 Dated 18.11.2005 and
.__j;.I.uudg;ncnt and order of the 13.0., Sp1., Court for Economic
_ Ot’fence$,__ Bangalore City in C.C.No.134/’2004(O1d
_1:2’*:~37/ 2.997) Dated 24.02.2005.
‘ Tizis petiticn coming on for hearing, this day the Court,
‘ ‘T . . _ _ the following:
CRIMINAL REWSION PE’I’I’I’ION 1s:Q;.m3
i$$u:.:§1$a;v 0:’ 1%.-‘§LE’£’§&I1′{L, “325: iéffifiéfiiflfi G1” P’%?€’Se. I 82, 2
§&Cu1″‘é:€i bfjfflffi {£16 Coast 3116: fl’}.{‘E3e’ 31% net.
$3 <:§*<}$S~=€}:a;:i§Ii£a€iG11 E33: 3'16 c'1é:f£::"i$é;: and ?;h{iI"€fif(}E'€i,
is {:5 €};1<–: <::<::'1$i£ifi:t*ié{': visa? 33.3: f3i?§{§€§'1€3€ <32' ?WS.E,
b arzii 2 13:5 fiyiévz-'i{.21e€s$ {<3 %.E'zt': ailziigiéd acaiizifiili Wili havfi {G be:
the acctigédupetiticnfir submitted that PWS. 1 8; 2, aftfizj
&xami§;1atix311«i11«chi€f W€i'€ subjected to «:.:r<::ss–~€Xa.1§§ii:fiét%§fi,r.-i
than thereaffzer, an application was fi1§d…t§' reacéiii {$33 '
wiiiiesseg for fur'€E1€1* crosswaxanaiilaiiignij "i}.;§e ij
aflawaé in 831133 Gf issuasace of Sn£:§i:1¢fl§ .{hE€f}-'
did 320*; appear bafare fhfi f'G.;"' .i;i1i*'i;'fi7L.¢1*_ §::1*<:vs3~
e:xa111iz1ation ané as such, fsiavér {G ':36
€${:hew€d, since .§";aV§;"":i0'-5: seivég fair
<:1*{:$s«exan1iI1ati<§1*L " the svicienczs
adduced by ,:Ef: §’1::%…$::iifiCi€11t ta: gjvrcva {ha
Iifigfigififiififi {ER thé *€:’:Vf:3§’Vtlfgé=:g.éi,*§1S€d=}3fitiii@:161′ anc} ;:rra3£a:*:{E
far geitifig a$id éL««..t_}”1:3 J§:s:ig:1:i<:1j_.:li; Cut' {Z'IOi"§.'§?§;{;'E'{;iGi"i pasgad ':C}§" the
<:C.'~'L::?7.'5,% " …..
ESL Q1: {f:;’§i_1′{“ff’Li} §cru{:ii13-* Gf 131$ 1″€C{JI”dS it is: Seen that
/QL,Q;.Lr~.,£r.A:LL…
bus on the date of accident or not, Ex.P.-4 notice issued to
the Traffic Inspector and the reply given by him ve’»_”Wou1d
assume importance. On perusal of Ex.P.4 an
the C0h.l1I}.I}.S of the said notice are kept 1
the name Inspector (I’-‘W.5) of d
to the notice as per Ex.P.5 and ef ,
the driver of the offending bus’ 17 to be
Shayama Rae Shakle _ This
document] reply notice to have been
prepared on ._ _ _shect/leg sheet.
From the __1<_)§ the learned counsel
that has been entered in the log
sheet as St1e::fnRa6 token No. 6344. The name
.. of the }l_diiV'er token number is mentioned in a
is also pointed out that the vehicle number
as 40 and the same has been scored
' ofl' it is mentioned as F-617. Likewise, the
« 'nunibcr of the driver was initially mentioned as 66
same has been seared off and has been re~–entered
V' " the route number. according to the proswution is
224~»D Whereas, the route number mentioned , is
220/} and as such, the learned counsel forfiie'
submitted that the prosecution
marked as at Ex.P.5 & 6 to falsely %
herein, the 'I'rafi'1c
document Ex.P.6, tllongh petitioner
was not at all involved arguxnent of
the learned eounselfor a doubt, it
does not the bus driven
by the in the accident, since,
the evidez_1ce;oi; of the bus who was
conducting uifetmiétinvgs has stated in his evidence that
" he the and later on, he got _doWn from the
{me motor cycle and the person had fallen on
the rn and another person also had fallen on
the However, on careful reading of the evidence of
Rhe conductor of the bus does not reveal that
V. herein was driving the said bus in a rash and
negligent manner. X5 U\_£LL'|;
7. The spot mahazar Ex.P.fZ reveals that the place
Where the accident in question has oocurrw is a road
and the width of the road is mentioned as 4 _lt.’1c
road being a curved road and ‘down
of the motor cyclist should have :.t@’he 1
bus to passthrough, instead; the of
has taken the risk in the and to have
lost control and hit Siclg. to this,
on perusal of the lgféport Ex.P.9 it is
seen that petrol tank of the
motor the right side head
light of’%tnc and the right Sigdc=bumpe1_’ is
pushed would reveal that motor
__. Vcyc1ist.¥j}i£as~d1iv¢§r1 gaid meter cyck: in a gspccd and
were engaged in talzdng in the curve
m %_1;%%%%k*::%’é;Ippea they collided with each _ot11c1_’,_\wI1ich
rg’;:s11l1;”éd_.. death of motomyc1ist(Shn_’1’a_m 1. % Even the
% qrmms PW.16 also has not stated that the driver
th>é bus was driving the bus in aurash and negligent
er. As there is no specific, cogent and reliabic
/mt
pumsitgsbie U/S”; &J:304-A IPC. The material on record
in suspicion of the accused being guilty of
V ‘tstifficient to hold the petitioner guilty. The
A should prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
£116 order of conviction and sentence passed by the
10
evidence to establish the fact P€.titionm’_ herein was
driving the bus in a rash and_neg1igexit mm,1i1er,_o’:”£1ie11e1y
because there is an impact and the motoztzyolisti.’
died at the spot and another suffered
negligence cannot be attributed die 7.
bus. Besides, the prosecutioniigs to
report marked as Ex.P.9, and as
such, there remains a tile accident
occurred. The that he saw the
accident of the matter
have not__ wfiiourts below and the
Courts lselowi ‘.~at- a wrong conclusion that the
petitioner of committed the offences
tlie suspicion however strong would not by
2: E.5—-&.«’N.C_K..;L Low.