EN $32 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE*ffa:?;u* DATED THIS THE 12?" DAY 09 DECEMBER, 20§8, a7 BEFORE: K THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTECE;A.S.«PACEHAPUREa '2 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.5§d»oF,2oo€'~ ' BETWEEN: State of Karnataka€"- _ jug ,Vka, u By Gundlupet PQi;cai_ _*¢'_ _A,;;'"WAPPELLANT/S [By Sri. M.G}gnjagamfi:tfi§;-HCGPQ3' AND: K.Ummar, 'a VV '_ Bin Abdul_Rehmaq;V.5 55 yeaxa. '~ ;LérIY 5r1ve:.. '~'~* ---------- w'Rdvs.}*, C.aliCiL1ft: V' .' KeraiaTstat¢;g»_=. ... RESPONDENT/S
[By M/sachfisfibfiher Noel A & Dakshayini M.V.,
‘§”k*k
‘.’=fhis Crl. Appeal is filed u/Section 378(1) &
‘~43) §Cr.P.C. by the State p.a. for the State
._ §raying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
>a*,gfiant leave to file an appeal against the
“a Judgmant dt. 23.09.05 passed by C.J. [Jr. Dn.} &
JMFC., Gundlupete, in C.C. No.77/05 acquitting
hhin_ a “arash’ tend negligent manner and hit
“”eChihkahelieeGowda {deceased}, aged about 89 years
htano thereby he fell down and sustained injuxies
on the spot. P.W.2, the son of the
h”deceased came to know about this accident and
the respondent/accused for the offence p/u/S3,
2?9, 304(A) IPC. ‘a”,
This Crl. Appeal coming on for .Fihait?eW¢
Hearing, this day the Court deliverefifl the 2 =20
following: ‘< 't'
The State has "*Qrefierreo;flhthi3h' apfiéal
challenging the Judgment .ahe .0§de§ hot 'acquittal
of the respondent forfithe eharee 050;} sections
279 and 3O4–AVr§C ee a trim; hé;a_0§ the JMFC.,
Gund1upet.,0».t _ _ _ _ _
2. ?$he_fa&t$rteie§ant for the purpose of
this appeal are aS,underE3″*”
on 25″;1v12«.g000«~1 at about 10.00 51.231. that
the.reaeoneent was driving the lorry bearing reg.
No.KE§ 1601; gear Ashirwad Lodge, Gundlupet Town,
oz.
“and filed the Charge sheet against the accused.
it evidence lfi{.eramining P.Ws.1 to 6 and £11 their
udefiidence got marked documents Exs.P1 to 7. The
“,Vsgate¢ést of the accused was recorded under
R; total denial and did not lead any evidence in his
V defence and got marked EXs.D1 and 2, the
after visiting the spot approached the police add :3L a
lodged the complaint [Ex.P2], which came_ ta h§¢d
registered bye the P.S.I. [PtW:d}i’ifg iherimedid
No.308/2004 and he sent the oomplaiht;iEx.§2}iandlr
FIR [E’.x.P6} to the Magistratiet;:”. He”
spot and in the presefice of mP{§.l” and denother
held the spot mahazar [ x}Pi1: and dp;epared the
inquest mahazar oh the hody of Chihkahelle Gowda
[deceased] as “he; tfi$§§3 Jana :;ép£_ rte body for
post*mortem–w.eredihati0h}fil’.r:fi@; recorded the
statement of the mdthee3es,ahd also secured the
Motor ‘vehioleelheoeotorfg fitter the examination
oi the yehicle, he oollected the relevant records
dDuringi*the? trial, the prosecution led the
deotion 313 Cr.P.C. He has taken the defence of
we
contradictions in the statement of P.W.4. :néf,’=
Trial Court on appreciation of the material lonfi=i*
record has acquitted the accused and aggrieved hy”_
the acquittal, the state hast preferred =fih§a x~7
appeal.
3. I have heard. the ~learned Government
Pleader. The learned cofinsel fie: {fie respondent
is absent.
4. The rvgolnt ” that , arises for my
consideratlon”ie}
Whether_ the ‘Jeddfient and Order
of acquittal “of ithe} respondent for
the ‘offence, under” aections 279 and
h’gA3O§3A1fPC_is illegal and perverse?
lr5: _’ it? is “the contention of the learned
aj $overnment{§leader that Shivanna H.J. [P.W.4} is
i”thed’eye«witaess examined. by the grosecution and
l’his’gevidence reveals that the deceased while
increasing the road, the driver of the lorry i.e.,
Vl«fi”the respondent herein drove the lorry in high
54.
speed and in rash and negligent manner and,
thereby hit the deceased and that there’ is lh,
nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.5vahdt,”
therefore he submits that the Order_ofjacdUittaint
by the Trial Court is illegal and pefivetse. *2
6. I have scrutinized the evidence ahd else
the decuments. , A-m]ta
7. P.W,1 is the atfestine witness for the
spot mahazat_{Ex.§t;_and.§.W+3 is the person who
was present ,atd the itimeifiwhen the inquest was
held. P.Ws.2 and 3 a¢e.£hé sons of the deceased,
who after”_thei accideht saw the dead body and
PeWs;5 and g éfg the investigiting Officers. So:
the: e;eseeutiens}exclusively relies upon the
1″evidehee of~the:eye*witness [P.W.4], who states
~ gin his evidence that at the time of the accident,
‘_ he asaw “the deceased was proceeding across the
‘ freed and at that time, the lorry came in rash and
h”aAheg1igent manner and hit the deceased.
i4