1
IN THE) HIGH coum OF' KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY 2098 V
THE HONBLE MR.Jfi::YfK'.E
CRIMINAL REWSIQN "N.§).4"i6"()F'v§2008
B N: L
Srifiaghavendrgt S @iRaghu 'V
S/0 .-
Aged about
Residing at~~.Nc;2;50, E._IG,2 "
M.U.D.%A;k, N<::}1r 1%}; %
Hebbal, éM'ys£)1*eV _ é ..PETI"I'IONER
(By M; s%%Nupur«Ass;£s., Adv)
V A. H ..... .. V
By" N_V.'R§'i':'gfli'iC;; Police
sta:ion,.Mygom. ...RESPONDEN'I'
(ayisri: A.V.Ramak1'ishna, HCGP)
= _ .='I'his Crl.RP is filed under Section 397 read with
a _V --.fj.~4U:1 Cr.F'.C praying to set aside the impugzed judgment
order dated 31.01.2008 passed in
Cr1.A.No.197/2006 on the file of the 11 Add]. Sessions
' ~ Judge, Mysore and the judgment; and sentence dated
09.08.2006
passed in CC No.116/2004 on the file of the
‘___f’*”-‘*\./
3
2. Though this case is listed for .
taken up for final disposal with “the. V’
Counsel for the petitioner-ac:§iz.§(-$§1_V_ A.
High Court Government §:é;ader amxmeir imkents”
are heard on A’ fh’e “i mpu@1ed
judgments and alsofl’ the ” placed onj
record.
3,% L by the Trial Court and
also to factum of occurrence of
accideni;k;5u”‘ as place as stated in the
this petitioner-accused, death
of . as a result of the said accident
“a_t1i”!__thé’ ifgztoifgéfiment of vehicle are all not disputnd.
1 Learned Counsel for the petitioneraccused
A “i that of the three eye witnesses namely PWS 3,
5 and 6 examined for the prflfiecution, PW6 has tunied
” f’1ostj1e and therefore, the conviction is basw on the
evidence of PW3 and 5, which does not disclose that the
….<"""//
accused dmve the said vehicle eithe_1.*–
negligently cannot be s11staiI_1_cd__and."'
impugned judgnlents are liable to; be. set me. f 7 X
5. Per Z the
learned HCGP eye witnesses
have deposed said vehicle at
high deceased and
therefgrm as Appellate Court:
were justifidd guilty of the said
offences and judgments do not
call for this revision.
reading of the evidence of PW3
5, itais d dddthm; both of them have stated in their
“the accused drove the vehicle at speed
ddswtsixéd against tin Idwsed, but they have not
, _ speed at which the said vehicle was drive:n by
‘tlxiédd accused. Learned Counsek far the petitioner
(………””\.a-v..—n
5
referring to this nature of evidence of 3
placing his reliance on two décisiong {of “of 51′ AV
Rajasthan in the case of L %
Nauratan Mal reportedV1’n:.?{.702 %(;*r.LL;J.% .3 é{8VVVand in
the case of State af ed in
“2oo2 Crl.L.J. 3514 that itself is not
the criterion:.”t6’jAc£i111¢::’«to€tfixc that the vehicle
was driven eith£:-.2; and therefore,
the cams below cannot
be sustainable Jaw.-%% by the High Court
of Rajastjgan in .. ‘inf State of Rcyasthan Vs
in 2002 CrLL.J. 343 at para
10 and .1;ig..§
V u In my opinion, the findings
* r qr lama Magistrate on the point that
V’ the vehicle was not being drivcjn rashly
or negligently are liable to be confirmed
r’___S”””>*–w”.
one as they are based on H
appreciating of evidence.
11. No doubt;
La} and PW4 — fiaifiistated
that the vehicle lmt
speed for
of the
‘V ._ ..a11€i until it is proved by
‘A that the vehicle was
being. rashly or negligently.”
the case of State of Rajasthan Vs
–VVJoit;i in 2002 CrI.L.J. 3514 at para 9 and 10
‘V V’ as under:
“9. PW6 —- Ooka has not been
cross examined, still, his testimony
falls much short of proving the guilt of
(__r»._./
7
the accused. He simpiy states
tractor was going $§rith”fa.$t*’_.spg3’§§§i:»
Tariya fell down.
about the jerk; vlhtfas. ‘by
the tractoxf as the. _ Fl}q ” ;. . _,}§,’x;§P5.
Fmm h§S'*» fgzctum of
aeeifjent it does
or rashness
on the part of the _
speed of the :::~acto};
disclosed.
10. If ' is' e ~ the four
eye wiénesses tt’ave§}jI;ig in the
tmney of the real
V. The prosecution
usotfiigatzion to prove that
the e’4j:’ea;.e{;n for the accident was
the raslf’ negligent driving on the
<'—–(''''''–'*'''''''''''
9
conviction and sentence dated 09.08.2006
No.116/2004 on the file of thqleamedh”i’§¥:V’._(:’giéil.’_’_:Cit*ii
Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM,
dated 31.01.2008 oil
file of the learned II fiddl. are
heraby set aside. acquitted
of the 304A of IPC.
However, for the
section 196 of mxv
Act gmA¢he fine, if any, paid by the
petitionei9¥a§:cu${}:c§.”éi’1;:aif…”i’)e returned to him.
Sdf
Judge