IN 'THE HIGH COURT 0}? KARNATAKA, Bmcmpekg DATED THIS THE 28m DAY 01:' JUNE %ms% _ BEFORE Q % ' % 1 & THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE.R.7B. fi CRIMINAL REVISION f'E'ITPiQN:'ANO.7i37v"()F L BETWEEN S11i.Prakasl1,S/oRangaV"p.pa, A Aged about 20 years, _ g AA " R/at Near Shani Mahatma-1Te:riipI£, " V Bangalore-560 531,6. L .... .. '<.;;,: _ " . " 2 Petitioner (By Sri. <1. Srcekantan Nair, Advocates) AND: _ ' ' State V 'V " By W hitci1eixiAPo1ice Efiation, 'Rep by Prosccutor, w _ ['By Sri."SV,A§3.Pavin, Additional 3.1». 12,) High -Coiirf/Gf Bangalora. ' ' :Respondcnt ' = Criminal Revision Pefition is filed under Section V I'/W 401 Cr.P.C praying to set aside the Judgncnt and .o;_vd7er of the District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court- KIII, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in CI'1.A.N0.7i2/2005 ~ «~ Dated 24-12-2005 and Judmcnt and order of tha Additienai C.J.M., Bangalore in C.C.No.295/2004 Dated 2-7-£005. ,Q.QLv~¢4.:J«'~---- This pctitiox; coming on for hearing,' this day made the following: ' . 3 The mtitioner/accused is " punishable under Section is glayia fine of Rs.500/- in default "IVS days and he is further coI1vict<v=:'ci--..V:'fer pfunishable under Section 304-A go S.I for six months vv1i;}'1'£i:efa11lt to undergo S.I for 15 éuufiction and sentence dated 2-7-2
ooa5% :”‘A§icl1.C.J.M., Bangalore msmct,
Bangalore The said order of conviction
‘benfxrmed by judgment dated 324-12-2005
pa$St:d_ –.Presidir1g Oflioer, Fast Track Court III.
Bangalore in Cr1.A.No.72/2305.
AA ltis the case of the pmseculion that the appellant]
A was driving Swaraz Mazda vehicle bearing No.KA
407 from the side of Om Farm towards Whitefield on
15-12-2003 at about 1-15 p.m Sathappa father of 1=.w.1
was going on the footpath near the smnd gata RIC
Factory, the petitioner dmvc the vehicle to the
side of the road and dashed ag:.-am’ st –
to the compound of the factory. >1′ A’
sevens injury died at the scent: of
ccmplaint of P.W.1 a case tit
petitioner/accusegl’ arrested
and the vehicle i3.j1’voIve(I’VV_i;:1: was seized. The
vehicle was the accident was
found toV 32:2. defect.
of its case examined
P.W.l g_0t.’Exs.P. 1 to R6.
fi 9.13:. 1A.She é.1si””‘i$ the daughter of the deceased. She
stated that on 15-12-2003 at about 1’o
V cIock’–1¥icr$r;1f_ beer father were going near 0111 Farm and
* ~ –wfi*:cj;11L fl1.§33¢’_.AA:W€FC standing in front of Om Farm, the vehicle
V’ the petitioner/accused came in a high smd and
da:3l%1cd against her father. Her fattmr sustaincd ixijurics to
VA fiis head and wheels went over her father’s body; the head
QKMAJUM
got ruptured and her father died at the scene of
itself. At the time of accidont, her father on
the footpath. She has further
again’ st her father, the velxiclcoalsgi
compound wall and came A’stiV:1<_1.V
the petitioner/accusotl. tho dfiver…ofv:§t11c vehicle
bearing No.KA-03~B-40'i'.:tA'_t sh¢Vtot1ga§:oo}sr,a§§e>.W.4, p.w.5 and P.W.6
have aloot at P0 clock near RIC
factory the lorry driven by the
accusodj pcu;tioiiorwoaI1i’o a high speed and dashed against
said person fell to the ground and
taieaai occurrence itself.
Z is a peach Witness for the scene of offence
t Ex.P.3. P.W.7 has stated that the police drew
mahazar as per Ex.P.3. to which he has subscribed
P.W.8 T.Ramaiah, C?! has stated that on
15-12-2003 at 1’o clock he received first information rcmrt
9
and he went to the scene of occurrence spot
panchanama as per Ex.P.3. He has
caused the arrest at’ petitioner] acgusgd 51;.
bail and he seized the vehicle ma fgifar
examination. After mceipt of as
per Ex.P.6 and after c<::1§31pIct;iVx.*i..4:é:A'fL"»{w1*::r1.f;;1it.i <:'.¢'5 irfivcsfigafion,
he filed a charge "'p§:titioncr/accused
herein. P.W.9_ 7 'on receipt of the
complaint 9:1' a case against the
petifioucrlar:éj1%§e;f A' iv
7. ‘fecorci more particularly the
evidence {_:)f é.’w%~1k wh¢% accompanied the deceased and
I- W’hQ side at’ the deceased Sathappa on
thé right side in front of om F’am1 factory
” ” mveais the vel1iclc__&g coming in a high speed went to
‘ u right side of the road on to the footpath and
‘.”1&&2s_Vl’1’e;<.~ié': against Sathappa and he diad at the scene of
_' itself. The IMV report reveals that the accident
was not due to any mechanical defect. Thc very fact that the
vehicle has left the road and has gone to the
side of the road and dashed again' st the ._.;§as
standing on the foot path reveals the _<i1'-iiréri.
in a rash and negligent manncf':.Aan'_€_'i ~ "ixfzst J
deceased Sathappa. The ifnfit
appellate Court are 'we-:11 3 and
sentencing the Qflenccs for which
he is charged. 'V _iA:'c1_<_3 to interfere
with the ' swiéiiiencc passed by the
Courts
ii i GRDER
'}j..'hr:_ is dismissed. The order of
passed by the ma!' Court as
appellate Court is confirmed.
Si???
2* i ‘””‘”*
