Loading...

Sri Prakash S/O Rangappa vs State Of Karnataka on 28 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Prakash S/O Rangappa vs State Of Karnataka on 28 June, 2008
Author: R.B.Naik
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 ‘””‘”*

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information