IN THE HIGH comm' op' KARNATAKA~ fl
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARG_P;~~---- % %
DATED: THIS THE 15% DAY 01-' 2908 A T
THE HoN'BL:-3 MR,..:psr§4Cg£a;ANA§ii)A " VA
CRIMINAL REVISION pE*r5 *j*oN No,k374 cm-2007
Sure-sh, = V j
S/o.Shamu Naik,-- V
Ooc:Drivcr KSRTQ
Depot:'No."1,=..f5. 'V _ _
R/axoranti
Temp1e"I.'handa--,. ' «. V "
Gulhargagv, - % %
4 . ' .. PEPYTIONER
(By fmsaga: lf'ati1.',.Aa«goc~ate)
"""
A Staté' Add}.
'I'1a£fic
j_ V .. RESPONDENT
(By=«.S1*i.f3ubhas Mylapur, Govt. Plcader)
This criminal It-vision pcfition is am 1118.397 Cr.P.C.
~ to set aside the order of dismissal passed by the
” _ ‘ –,Fri_.S§J., Gulbarga dated 14.2.2007 passed in Crl.A.No.51/()6
‘ in confirming the rxanvictima. order passed by the I Addl.
WJMI-“«’C, Gulbarga in c.c.No.159s/200:3 dated 21.3.2006.
This criminal revision petition, coming on for adnfissioa,
this day, the Court made the following:
ORBER
The petitioner was txiad and convicted $15 V
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 we
offence punishable under Section of ” u
1988. The first appellate court “I
of conviction. Thcmfore, the is bflffiifg L.
by invoking Sccfion 397 IPC.
‘thewfacts of the case, it is
necesséi.:Ay” of the Supreme Court
reported _ A1R mag” 931 (STATE 01+’ KERALA vs.
. Puafléurgaazqa li;[a?.T.H…JATHAVEDAN NAMBOODIRI) wherein
°i1′{__3uI’£ has dealt with limitaticvns of rcvisional
of appreciation of cv:d’ encc when
‘V congiigihpfvfisndmgs are recorded by the Trial Court and the
K x V first4_ua;pV§c1iate court. In the above decision at paragraph 5 it
.’ ‘ifi
“5. Having examined the impugned judgment of
the High Cow! and bearing in mind the
rm? ($~’9″‘*”‘J””‘
contentions raised by the Ieamed counseifor the
parties, we have no hesizaiim to some iofihe’-«_ “-,V’
mnciusion that in the case on hand,
Court has exceeded iis revisiana1ju:is¢Ziei%£zifL’:.A_TInL” %
iis revisional jurisdiction, iiigiriigh. é
for and examine the record if
the purpose of safisfjjfirg ia$eg’,’ a.’€»”‘V’§§2 : 3’}le’T§ A
correctness, legality or ‘
sentence or order, ‘In other the
is (me of supemisnfy jziéisiiiciiim by the
High Court for justice.
Bu: the be equated
Court nor can it be
ireciieai evgii Appellate Juiis’ diction
Ordinariiy,V it would not be appropriate
, for the Hi’gh_’C3oi.i1’t to re-appreciate the evidence
to its own ooncfusions on the same
i. has already been appreciated
” by as well as the Sessions Judge
in unless any glaring feature is brought to
notice of me High Court whidz would
AA otherwts’ e tantamount to gross miscarriage’ of
k’ flmiae-‘ N é,W.,i£,w
however the same was disbelieved by the ‘l’r’na1
of positive evidence of PW–»I5 Motor
Shankar. The accfl cm; was not:-diie-to b j 2
failure. Thus, We find that judgI:i£*.7;1t’:s;–A.A_{:i’1;V
based on proper appxecia€io1§*~9f V
and also attendant _
6.’I’hc accused’ d1’3’vi1ggL”a.._i3z;s«within Glfibarga city
limits. The bus went a road side
txcc. ‘3″he:V that due to sudden mechamca’ 1
failum. “r1_;e ifijiflfé&.§y’€%i_Titfi€SSCS have deposed that accident
upiace di1e.. t§ rassh and negligent driving of petitioner.
do not find any glaring errors committed by
appreciation of evidence. ‘fhcmfom, this
rc~appreciatc evidence to arrive at its own
A.m5nc1i:”s .ions.
7. As far as the conviction recorded by the courts
” fbexaw under Section 137 of the Motor vehigzes Act, it is
JV,
neccssaxy to state that witnesses for prosecution _hfiv;_-:, ~1r;_1ot
deposed them was no mob fury and
position to take all reasonable sfigps W
attention for injured passcngexs.
record to Show that accused L.
police oficcr any inbxmation éhemfom,
conviction recorded for oflenoe
punishable undgr Act is set
aside. It is have sentenced
pctitidi1er’–fo1″. under Sections 279, 337
and 333 rm” mg ofi”eg1c§_’;1;1der Section 279 we is tcchmc’ al
ofiiigcét and if’1m§1fges:With the major ofihnccs like Section
304-A. Therefore, when petitioner was
ofiianccs like Section 337 and 338, there
ng.–_. 1ict:£f for the courts below to sentence petitioner for
€.*I3 ofi.€Vfi(é€ under Section 279 {PC}. (NLNAGARAJU vs. STATE
‘%%{2ca4} 4 Crimes 52 AT 56). In View of this, the jadgmtmts
by the courts below nscd to be modfied to the extent
stated above. . M”
9. In the result, Ipass the V
Criminal petition is VTh§ L’
conviction passed by courts for’ ;_$3unishabIae
under Section 187 is set aside and
petitioner is acgquittcvi : ¢ae:;§e%}%i%%;,;gfi;shab:e under
Section 187 cf passed by
courts Sécfion 2’79 IPC is set
aside, passed by the courts
below £6: under Sections 337 and 338
3d/—
Judge