-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATMG AT BANGALORE DATES THIS THE 753 DAY OF AUGUST, 2008 BEFORE mg HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.AI)I_ I .~
CRIMINAL REVISION PETFPION r~Io.22o/2£>%0 8*»_ ‘ L.
BETWE N: %
Sri, B. Ramcsha,
Son of Bhujalingam,
Aged about 28 years,
Driver of Lorry’ bearing
N0, KA~ 10-4446,
Dxéving Licence No.3] 2A, A
Resident of Kothur Village,
V.D.Pa1yam Post, Gudiyathan Taluk; – A ‘
Veilur District, Tamilfladu. Steflate, _ I
Presently R/a. Ba1§i7_Tr2gi:1s}:o-art. _ ”
Ofice, Yeshwanthapumm; V .. ‘
Bangainre. . 5 ‘ ….PF2’!’ITIONER
(By “A§.so<:t_iates. Advs.)
AND:
State by Peiice .
Mgngiya RESPGNDENT
» % B. Balakrishna. HCGP}
U] S397 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside
Tjjthe “-conéicfion and sentence recorded on 31.12.2007
— -. «CrLA.No. 1f3V2j-{)6 by the R0. FTC Nofli, Mandya, and also set
é Limpfigned conviction and sentence orcier Dt.{)7.10.06
1 by”; the Ci.J.(Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Nagamangam, in
{)3 and thereby acquit the gaetitioner from. the
<;m~e+;c.a 19/11] 3.279, 337, 3('}4(A) of'IP€':, Rjw Sec.134(A) and (3)
. _ of–I_M'\F-Act. '
" " This ztvision petition coming on for admission this day,
ii-1e Court made the following:
that, the road is sloppy and curve and vehicle speed was
moderate, but the same is denied by PW1. PW2 is also another
passenger who was traveiiing in the lorry. He also sufieijedi V H
and he has stated that, after committing the “‘ti?.§ H
accused ran way from the place. PW3 ha}.-s”statgq
turn turtle on the side of the road and the
right dimction. He was also the.”-said
also another passenger. PW.s.S, file…
witnesses. P918 is the Invesfigsiiinfi registered the
case and went to the_:sp__ot and rough
sketch and eondoeted’ Motor Vehicle
Inspector. ” .i N
6. evide:ieeiVof to 4 it is clear that, they
were travelling the e-fibers states that, the lony was
movfiig speed} had prepared the mahazar and
a1so–..theire1igh__Vs1<eteh.._The rough sketch is marked as Ex.P11.
F0111 ioudh it appears that, the lorry was moving
VV'uf__"I'(:VvI11V Mangalore and the accident had taken
side. The accident spot is about 18 ft. from the
{he and it shows that. the scooter was coming from
e I V _ towards Bangalore and it was on its left sfle. The
had gone to the right side and toppled on the exfieme right
side and rider of the bike had fallen on the extreme right side of
the accident spot.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, 50 ft.
brake marks are shown which appears from rough sketch. Iftlie
lorry was moving on the right side, there was no teasotavtef
brake on the left side. He also states that, the evideiiee it _
to 4 do not support the ease of the pmsc:’-fiitien ._ai1_d he
consistency in their evidence. He else the
was moving in a vexy moderate speeii». the ‘ace used Wasllnot
negligent in driving the vehicle”.
8. Learned Goverement judgments
of both the Courts beleitéfigltt ‘V .
9. It is net. 4 were travelling in
the Iony. No Zsgiggestieiit is they were not travelling in
the lorry. They All these Witnesses have
stated that,_§;theeAlon*5l(* :Ii10’E!lflg in a high speed. This is evident
and also sketclz-.– Ex.P1I. The
accused “the seeeci was not able to central the
and had giaslcied against the scooter and toppied. if really
i it *s.e”c:used had seen some object and was trying to avoid the
wouid have explained in 313 statement. Hut, 313
is one ef total denial. PWs.1 to 4 being the
«:..e-yewimesees and the PW8 being the Police Ofieer, who has
i piepared the mahazar and also the sketch, it clearly shows; the
negligence of the accused.
10. Looking into the evidence, I do not find there is any
ermr committed by both the Courts below. In slash
circumstances, this being revision, when there is clear
of four Witnesses with regards to rash and ncgligeigé: ‘ 1/
coupled with mahazar am the sketc1v1,~A»I…d’o
justification to interfem with the judgmént 7-:
below. Aiaart fmm this, the Motor” \_R’:1;jc1e–‘ VA
stated that, fherc was no deft:§:t filleged
accident. V A
Accordingly, this :*¢:visio31″i:.*»d}”:mtiss:g3d. «V –