I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF I§:ARNA'1'AKA AT BANCrg§E;(}RE
DATED THIS THE 25% DAY OF' SEWEMBER ?2'<};:s
BEFOREMH _ 7 __
THE HONBLE MRJUSTJCE ' J 7
S/0 Siddaiialaj,-""V_ % L ,'
Aged a.bout~28 "
Resic§.éntT'of .(2hikI§é11 1ra,1 Vi11agé"
Hampap:ua.H01:;fi '% ' '
H.D.KGt,e Taluk
Mysore I}ist1~ict§' % _ ..PE'I'I'I'I(I)N}3)R
.. (By S1'i;.I};C SIi1}1ivasa, Adv for
' ¥$:i'i."\Ii;1od Prasad, Adv)
'f'h.%: State? };Jayapura Police
Rcpresmnted by
The State Public Prosecutor
.. High Court Buildings
' Bangalore. ...RESPONDEN'I'
(By Sri: A.V.Ramakrishna, HCGP)
qr-""'-$~b\'""-*\......
2
This Cr1.RP is filed under Section sgfzigéirfuiiiiaxéoi
CIZPC praying to set aside the judgment arid
dated 27.03.2008 passed by the 11 Add}, 'District mid'
Sessions Judge, Mysore in Cr1,A..N_o.7'?'[2G07. the "
order dated 03.02.2007 passccrby they JMFfC__.:(EE_
Mysore in co No.1414/2005. - ' * 1 -
This Cr1.RP coming onafor day, me ' ii
Court made the fo1Iow:'tng:~ '_
Petitioner here'ir:1_,:" in CC
No. 1414/ 2oo5i'a;.n%th¢» molar JMFC, II Court,
Mysoro to as "Trial Court" for short}
has " and order of conviction
anrisenmnce i.--1;;:oeci«io3.o2.2oo7 convicting mm for the
ri .piifiis11able under Section 279 and 304A of IPC,
H h:'m:1 to undergo simple imprisonment for
onio the offence 21/3 279 of H30 and to undergo
» Sirnploiiiirnpzisonment for a period of 1 126 years for the
Aiofiierlce 11/ s 304A of IPC. He has also challenged the
Hmiudment dated 27.03.2003 passed in Cr1.A.No.77/2007
by the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
,,.....t'--'~""
3
Mysore (hereinafter referred to as
short) dismissing the said appeal and
Judgment and order of _
2. Though this is' fore"
admission, having regard (gr 't:h.e.j§'udment
impugled and also that lower Court
records are xjeee-iv_ed,;:"_~1:pV'fcs£Vv'Vfinal disposal by
consent the petitioner and also
learned = ':Vj'__Govemment Pleader. Their
a1'gume1its merits. Perused both the
, '_ judgxnents and also the entire material placed
' on r€0'?i"~"3-"Iv
:3; iiviaving heard the learned Counsel for both
the ddpdafties, the only point that arises for my
' '~§Ie'fei"'miI1ation in this appeal is:
"Whether the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court committed any ermr in
recording their findings that the
accused cemmitted the offences
xm
punishable 11/535 279 and 3O4AvVcf;f"'»e..
IPC?" '
My finding on this p<.)'im',-.iés '
for the following, V 2 2 A
3
4. The findings well as
the Appellate Couzrl: Vito: of accident on
29.07.2005
g3.ooi[§ pom; Baradanapura
Villajie ‘– H.D. Kote Road, the
mvolvexliergi of regfistration No.KA 22 —
t§1eV.’Said;.._.acoident, the death of the deceased
c «vg§1:”1*e:s1.11t of fatal injuries sustained in the said
not disputed. The only disputed facts
a1’e”igh:$;1*£_ the petitioncpaccused was the driver of the
V’ 5* eaiti~«_.vehic1e on the said date, time and place of accident
and he caused the said accident by driving the same in
a rash and negligeot manner.
g-~..(–“”””*’—–“‘
S. Sri.D.C.Srinivasa, learned Couneel foiflflie
petitiorzepaccused, vehemently contended that’ iieigr
identity of the accused as driver of the we :
relevant time and place of accident
the prosecution and flietefere, ;
the Trial Court as well as this
‘ petitioner was responeibie the said accident
cannot be sust.ei11ed._»« ‘
c learned HOG? — Sri A.V.
Ramaldiehna that though PW4 to 6 did not
the as the driver of the said tempo at
‘ of accident, the evidence of PWS. 9 and
. iaifewjrespectiveiy owner and cleaner of the said
teznpoi’ elearly establishes the fact that this petitioner
V’ arias.’ tlie driver of the said tempo at that time. He
submitted that the petitioner–aecused did not
offer any explanation in his statement recorded under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he did not specifically state
(—-».–….§_–~\——..–r-“xx
6
therein that he was not driving the said
the relevant date, time and place of
therefore, the findings recorded’ “by* ‘
not call for any interference in fe_vision,:_3 = *
7. On ..evideiieeAVef I”-‘W4 to
6, the eye witnesses it could be
seen that PVi4″«§§e.s ‘eifiee the driver of the
said tnetcénxpo, he could not know
his name and eacidressgfe has stated that after he
went 19 die etafion, he came to know that the
.– ~. the dn'{ref ef the said tempo as Ramesh and
I’:e,’.1=went to the poiice station, the accused
was ppeeefit there. Furizher, PW6 has stated in his
evideixee that he did not see as to who was the driver of
” tempo at the fime of accident, but he came to
ienow that it was Ramesh.
r…..S’3″”‘*\.——~.,.,…a
7
8. On careful reading of the evidenceefi
the owner of the said tempo, it could be
has stated in clear terms t11a<'c't.his its
driver of the said tempo and its n
PW 10 is the said ' hisii
evidence that on the ._1 ted ago
at the afternoon, accused were
txaveiling time, the said
temp;-V = bywtiie accused and he was
cleaner; He' deposed that the accident
occ1;m'ed eh tliathvidaty Baladanapura Village and he
' _ eay how exactly the said accident
2 'It is pertinent to note that the above
A 57 efiidence of PW10 in his examitnation-in–chief has
ifemained totally unchallenged in his cross examination
made on behalf of the accused. Further, as rightly
submitted by the learned HCGP, the accused has not
(
8
stated in statement recorded under
Cr.P.C. that he was not dI’iViI1g,.Ih_f;’2
the Ieievant date, time and
the contention of the iea1Tie,§i”~(3,ounee:l for d”dde«:.petitioner-‘V . L’
accused that the very identitfi “of “t1_1e aceusediias being
the driver of the said date, time a
place of accident eetabfished by the
pmsecution »
‘ etated in their evidence in
clear teiiaed was being driven by its
A_ at and that after the tempo dashed
‘ Karthik, the deceased was dragged
. atof about 35 feet and that the said accident
wae title rashness and negligence on the part of the
A 51” dfiver of the said tempo.
11. On careful perusal of the cross examination
of these three witnesses made on behaif of the
petitio:”1er-accused, it is seen that the above evidence of
r…_..s””—–\..—
9
these witnesses in their exa1niz1ation–iI1~chief..ié3 the
said tempo was being driven by its driver
and also negligently has i
being so, I do not find any
findings recorded by the as aev;:AMfipeHate V
Court that the pIo§=;eeufi_oii’V_ its beyond
reasonable doubt that he
committed the said
aceideiitiii tempo rashly and
negligentiy es’ “Which the deceased Karthik
d.iec1:…–.o t it
1:2; to the sentence imposed on the
H 1.\etitioiie§?{:;§.ek3iised, learned Counsei for the petitioner
that one year simple imprisonment for the
V’ V’ V. offienéeeis under Section 279 of H90 and simple
‘ for 1% years for the ofieraee under Section
‘V 1304A of IPC Imposed on the petitlonenaocused by the
Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court is very
‘__’_____:””u-I—\,__p4-6
10
harsh, in View of the fact that the accuseo ”
about 2’7 yeazs as on the date of
he is not havizlg any afiteeeoent’L’a§_mA~i».;:e’V
guilty of having committee!’ on any’
previous occasion. . the
petit:ioI1er~accused children and
also his par:;n§,»s_%:eand x1.+e: is detained in jail
for the his entire family
will regard to the facts and
feel that the ends of justice
wil} mefg’ of imprisonment is reduced by
‘-im”pn.sfn g seljltence of fine.
IIV;*A;resu1t, this Criminal Revision Petition is
“%ffa1Iowécs;m part. Whiie 1:nai.ntaim’ng the conviction of
petiiioner–aocused for both the offences under Sections
VT -“$79 and 304A of IPC, the sentence of simple
imprisonment for one year imposed on him for the
offence under Section 27 9 of IPC is hereby substituted
C_
11
with sentence of fine of Rs.2,000/— only,
undergo simple for
Further, the sentence of iInpriso1’_jm:enfe».for_:”lféfiyeérs
imposed on him for the oif¢fl=?e 1ir1d;’11’4 of V L’
IPC is hereby redigced fine of
Rs.5,(}00/~ is for the said
offence in defagiit, to for a
further ” out of the fine
to the father of the
deceased Eight
weeks time is the petitioner-accused
to, ~deposi%; fiiie «amount.
Sdfi
Judgé