1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE ST" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARALI NAGARA; "j % A NE 71"Cr BETWEEN: Sri- Bala Murugan, S50. Subbayya, Aged 24 years, RJa.DoorNo.5-76 _ Nakkaieri, Radhapura T131131; :4. Taznanivera District * . I " ' 'I':a.:r1il.;:Viad'1;1w" _ ...Petitioner. (By 'V " Stiéfe df~K.amataka, ' .Répr¢sr;4t1%QCi-.i§y'--~the .S$:;tcAF".~.!§hrfi;_: Ptesecumr, High Cour; '::€T'Karnataka, Bahgalsre; V ' . . . Respondent. % & ' ' '(By_.'SrVi}fi.LV. Ramakrishna, HCGP) Cr1.R.P is filed under Section 397 &. 401 ef C:-.P.C. ' pmyfing to set aside the judgment and order dated 5.3.2007 passed by Athei Addl.S.I. D.K., Mangalere in Cri.ANo.27if05 and cenfinned tfié judgment of conviction and order of scntenee dated 20.7.2005 ,_~r"-**v-./ 2 passed by the IMFC (II Court), Marzgalore, D.K., in C.C.No.4875!0-4. ; This Crl.R.P maxing on for orders aiong fizis day, the Court made the following : - ORDER
The revision petitioner herein, éazaiéi.’ ‘aeeusedake. in ‘
C.C.No.48?5/O4 on the file omge 1%-;:e«3 JMFQ?
Mangalcre, D.K. for the <3i'fe12cee"V«.Vig1";::1er "Seet_i<$ns fg279, 33?'
ané 304A of IPC has judment and
order of conviction-and $enfie:1ce– $?."2005 passed in
the j judment in Cr}. Appeal
No.2?1/05' aagtsd '5;V3j;.2d.f}7':eV"f)%',.xssed by the learned I Add}.
_vSessiQr;;s"J.udge,"'Maf1ga}ore, confrming the said judgment
' V and' erdcrv ioif. Ce: i3iiCti0I1 and sentence.
_ Karuflakar, learned eeunsel fer the
revisidii petitieflerwaceused, and also the learned SP? and
_ the impugled _§t1d@11fiI1tS and else perused the
'.'c§~e1j§cgeit;i£)ns of F*"W s.1 and 2, cepies of which are made
T '*'..aQxfé1i1abie by the learned Counsel for the pefitioner-accused.
c'*-"'""""""'
3. Though this matter is Iistcd today far on
I.A.I/08, this case is taken up for final dispozeaié’
of the learned Counsel for revision petitio11(:;f’V:éaz1d
SPP.
4. There has been a dfislffiigi
the present revision ‘”£?’_t_1.e1f’:t’«'()’1*~.’:–,. revision
petitierler has filed LA. of the Limitatioxz
Act sticlszixlg “It. is stated by the
petitioner-aCi:”£iié%¢fé to in support of the
said he had been to Tamil Nadu, he
cauid i1otV’t;:!_)u1:m: civcfto Mangalare for more than a year and
, A_ tI1.t:1V_’Vt:§f§1e’Ivf¢A,’ he cii€i’–vnQ§_«<:0me tc: know of the judgnfint passed
iI1: 'i:.'1VeT confimtning his conviction for the said
o.fféf1c'e$ a::id_ fliércfore, the said delay occuxred in filing the
pI'€S€I;t iT"(§V'iSi0I1 petition.
It is the settled principle of law that in dealing with
‘T ” -thb application fer condomation of delay, the Court shall not
V be too technical, but it shall have liberal appreach, so as to
C’–…{~”””‘_\–/
4
advance substantial justice to the litigants. Therefore, the
said explaxlation is accepted and I.A.I/O8 is afiewe£,1,”..,’_tD.e1ay
of 415 days caused in filing this
condoned as prayed in I.A.I/08.
6. The ieamed counsel for ‘then revistie-z1.V” ifietitiéjneié
vehemently contended that wit1ie’s$_”‘te:: accident
v1’2:., PW .1 Ibrahim, who the tefittorickeham-*
against which the, Jeegiseériegx NQCNX 5574
driven by the thevgrelevant date, mime
and plaee ei’ “t and alert} PW2 Ismail, an
independent’ eye fseVVi{;t1e::§e” said accident have not stated
s eieeij. terms }:)’6titi0I1€1″-3.CC{.1S€d caused the said
‘accident the said lorry either rashly or negligently
erueeen and therefore, the judgment and order
_ ef’eo:1fiietie;1 sentence passed by the Triai Court and the
gttidgmeat ef the Appellate Court: confirming the Trial Courtfs
.,._’j’t1dfi,,ment both deserve to be set aside.
r”\.._f’\~—-~\’
7. Per contra, the learned SPF contended tha_E’VtheV’ve1y
fact that the lorry driven by the petitioner-ace{1seeI’V’. 4_
against the said autoriekshaw fitifil’ ‘ ;
shew that the petitioner-accused eiereise
and was not cautious enough the séaikivvddlensjr and
therefore, the Trial coup; I’ig1*1’tI3/=A.’Ve§:jof1vietedA ‘tiievjjletitiener-
accused for the said ofiefices Court was
justified in ‘erder of conviction
and ;
8. the accident on the date, time
and place, iiiepindrig lorry and the Auto Rickshaw
— 51} the of occupant in the said I’iCkSI1aW
injuries by PW1, are all not disputed. O11
izhe evidence of PW.1, it is seen that he has
stated that While the auto rickshaw was proceeding
‘ National Highway on Panambur Cross Road near
Gate, the said 10:13; Came from behind the auto
V rickshaw and dashed against him, censequently the driver of
¢_______I””‘v*’&.—–§—-“”
6
the said aute rickshaw Abubackar and 21159 PW1
himself fell on the mound and the deceased Abufiaeker
sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to
that he (PW. 1) also sustained some ixijuries I 91′ .t
said accident. FWJ2 Ismail Whoieis fl A
witness to the said accident ..__stated_iii I1is.’etfiti.et1ce§ V’ r
as on the said date, time and__» of’ he was
moving in an auterieksh;-fit?’ towards KK gate
and at that time vsawi.-an –::t1te:jieke.ha$§% free: the
apposite A V lorry coming fiom its
behind. as ml-mt} 3 that the said lorry dashed
against :t–11e_ atitoiielesliiiw and consequently the driver of
said’:.ai;itorie1;shatttéii1d 22330 the other person sitting in it
the and sustained severe injuries.
9. preper appreciation mfig of the above
.A_eeide1iee. of PWs.1 and 2 the eye–wit:s:1essee to the said
V’ …_éecie§eut, it is clear they have not stated in their evidence
__t§1at the said lorry was driven by the petiti0I1er–aeeused
(___$f”–v—-z\/
either rashiy or negligently er the said lorry was driven by
him at high speed. What all these wimesses have_ in
their evidence is that the said accident occurred ..{‘a’uit.»
on the part of the driver of the said; tony. V
this nature of evidence of these 11:10
alternative but to hold that 2113:): L’
Appellate Ceurt both e0.n;’gInitted~ hc*ld.ing§ that the
prosecution proved beyehd,’ v’e_{i(:ubt that en the
said date, time place’ of Vtheefiefifioner-accused
caused said lorry either in a
rash or negligexit
1f1}.~vh1 of matter, present revision petitiori
and the judgment and order of
eeI1§ri(t_tic31’ii=11};¥;i Sefitenee passed by the Trial Court and aiso
the j1idgn::e’ntn:’tif the Appellate Court confirming the 3311163
U H K .deseh?e to be set aside. Hence the following :-
g-&.r’/\-“”_””‘
ORDER
The present revision petition is ;-I
impugned judmont and order of CQvI1ViC'{I’€3i’i’ s.c=.nto11Cé” » _
dated 20.7.2005 passed in c.c.Ne;4=;8:%5/o4*oe1iye iearxaegi
JMFC, :1 Court, Mangalere, e:>%;e:,, am ie1eeo[ehee;ed§meneo
dated 5.3.2007 passed x§’e;2?e1zc§5 by the
learned IAdd1. Diet. And Mangalore, ]Z).I{.
are hereby set e§si{:io_._ ‘oentenoe of the
13etitioner–acouSj§d:V Socéons 279, 337
and Court: and confirmed
by the Aogxjfiato said impumed judgments is
hereby asi4d’t~3.._ The ootiiionerwaccuscd is hereby acquitted
oflonce. ‘I*Iio amount of fat: imposed on this
e¢eeme1–eeeeeeee, if has been paid, shall be returned to the
accused. A3 copy of this order to both the Courts
‘ W ” ” 1 i’fo;f’thWith for’ information.
Sdf-
Judge
% 316*