Karnataka High Court
Parshuram Patil S/O Ramachandra vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2010
Dharwa_d';'__ A 'A
Vfifiy_Sri.P;"I~I.G'§itk§{indi, HCGP.)
IN¢HH3HKH{COURT(H'KARNATAKA(HRCUTTBENCH
ATDHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 013"' DAY OF FEBRUARY
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AI_{AL_1 Nz1_.'G;?XJ'[.2::'_/i§_I'V""» V
CRL.R.P.N0.2251/2009f '
BETWEEN: '
Parshuram Patil S/0. Ramachandra L'
Age: 34 years, Occ: DriverV,='~.__ "
R/0. Nagardalli, Tq: Chandgadh, V
Dist: Kolhapur, State: MaharashVt1'a';"
. .,...V ' "...Petitioner.
(By Sri . G.A.H0leyE;'nn"aVaT, dV0'ca't*e_.')=.'" =
AND:
The State of Ka1*Ar.rataka,_ A
Representeriby SI-"P_, "
Ci_r--~c.uit BVe'fi_ch_;'HVigh Co1;_rt,~
P.I. Traffic St--ation,
...Respondent.
"*§f'h~i_s'.4'Crimina1 Petition is filed U/S.397 Cr.§'.C. by the V"*».v.V21_Vciv.()j_eate for the petitioner praying that this H0n'b1e Court ':ri2'sy_t_)Ve_?p]eased to set aside the judgment and the sentence ¢m...%""'v"'"*-»----=~...,.....
order dated l/9/2009 passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in Cr1.A.No.3l/2008 confirming the judgment and order dated 25/1/2008 passed by the Prl.CiVil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CIM, Dharwad, in C.C.No.l4l/2006. T T fimWMW\ .
This aspspe-al coming on for dictating the Court made the followin :
Ol%DER The accused in C.C.No.l4ii'1./2:i}:_O'o on the learned Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Din~v..:):"'aynd CEVM',--.[5hair'=§i}iad,'i:has ' l challenged in this revisionthhe colri9ec.t:neises._ of the"in'ipugned Judgment and Order of convnictiiion .-and-i.I'V_~s_¢'.ntence dated 25/I/2008 said-..._case convicting him for the offences U/Sec"s4._l_2l7vv9 IPC and sentencing him to4'..1;ndervg«o4 simple iinipr_i_s_o:nment for a period of one month and-._t'o;.ipay --f_i'rie'«..of._Rs.400/-- in default to undergo simple iii'e»-ifirnprisonnientlfoitj another period of 15 days for the offence e_fliPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a it year and also to pay fine of Rs.l,000/- with r~ default sentence of simple imprisonment for a further period of one month for the offence U/Sec.304--A of IPC.
2) -Further, the revision petitioner-accused challenged in this revision the correctness of and Order dated 1/9/2009 passed in.<Crl.A.l'§loi.i.3iil'li'l24tlG8i.i_fby'.gif the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, said appeal and confirming the Conariction._o'fst'hei*.accused for the said offences.
3) Heard the arguments VVSr.i.i,Gi.iAi;_Holeyannavar, the learned icounsel'._--for5.the'Vrevision petitioner-accused and Sri.P.H.Gotkhii~ngdi, High Court Government Pleader. Vffierused the Judgments and also entire rnateriaimon rec.o-rid"~--o_btained from the Trial Court.
tiiiitiset, Sri.G.A.Holeyannavar, the learned "J_:&ou'nVSel for the' revision petitioner»-accused submits that, 7_'t'houg'h sieveral grounds are urged in the revision petition ii V-lcihallengging the correctness of both the Judgments, he does (_w_W_§"""""°"v-._i.~.
not dispute the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court as to conviction of the accused for the offence U/Sec.279 of IPC. While submitting so, he_'.fuVr.t_:h~er contends that, the Trial Court was not convicting the accused for the offence»eeUiSAec_',i3iOv4¥iiA»' in View of undisputed fact that occurred on 5/E/2006 at about ai.1rJ,, lidieceaised if died on 12/1/2006 i.e. seven da.y'siiaft;e.rii"tthe ocicurrence of the said accident and there is_no_ to show that the death was" s:a'nie----injuries sustained by Victim boy as accident.
5) Perii'c.9nt,ra',._Sri."P..::i%I.Gotkhindi, the learned High G5'o'i<ier_nmVentii'P«l.e_a.der strongly contends that, the fact'urnv'woiif'eaccidentgeccurred on the date, time and place as :,vv«4,,.,a1,1eg€diiifilthe.cli«.azfge framed against the accused has been- gto hayie been proved by the prosecution beyond
9.,_iq"reas:ona'b.ler'doubt and the findings of the Trial Court as well asi_4Ap.piellate Court that the said accident was due to rash e----§"""'""'"'--»\,.,.
'M and negligent driving of his vehicle by the accused is not in dispute and therefore the Trial Court was justifi'eid««.._ii=n convicting the accused for the offence also. -
6) PW.9, the father of the de'ceafs'e*d stated in his evidence that, his decye'a.,s%ed suVsit'~aih.e'd"so::ne injuries to his head as a res--uit of,thei_saiiide..acciide'ntand that he died on 12/1/2006 whileflhe un:d'etVv.Vtr_eatment. The prosecution has not.vc'hy_o:s~en to pr.odu.ci'e --t'h.e__vviound certificate to show the n'a'ttu-r_e:";ofiii%rjur'ie,s*-sustained by the deceased in the said accidenit..
_ 7) postmortern examination report which is reveals that the death of the i'v_,_decease-dd. toiinjuries sustained by him to his head. _jiThei'e_fore,ii erigihtly submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner--accused, the prosecution has failed .t}j..__iieVstaib1ish that the deceased succumbed to the very ,-»...{~"'°'-*«-»~..
injuries which he sustained as a result of the said accident. Therefore I am of the opinion that the conviction'o--iif--th'eA revision petitioner--~accused for the offence "
IPC cannot be sustained. However, s~iri'c'e~the_ fact"ti_1a:t'----t'i1ei'*; deceased sustained some injuries toi1hi"s,_head_yis'~notfi'~ni' dispute, the conviction of the iaicxcused lfori"=theiivoffence al_t'e,red to the one LUSee304--A cfi IPC deseaam ieibe.
{USec337ofIPC. _ t[>_ili
8) For the present appeal is allowed in revision petitioner-
accused for lithe of IPC and also the sentence for a period of one month imposed' i,.,'hi:in.._forthe said offence along with the sentelnce'«.iofii o.if~..'Rs.400/~ with the default sentence of ifsiiririple irn'pris'o'n-nient for a further period of 15 days is 1'Aeby can f i rin ed.
,m._.$'"""°"'---\ However, the conviction of the revision petitioner-accused for the offence U/Sec.304-A hereby aitered to the one U/Sec.337 of IPC. he is sentenced to undergo simpleV~ii'En';3.ris»onmeni_ fo--ri}a'-.' period of 15 days and to pay a fine cleifaiu--Et"~ to undergo simple imprisonmenti"foVri.a peri.o_d'~oif "days. Both the substantive senteni;'e~s shiiall cionpcurrentliy. Further, the revisi.oi1_ipeti.iti:on'é~;g;a'o¢.u"sed shall pay to PW.9 Shankarfl the resident of Kalaghatagifthe_i;faithieft""oifstlhei«deceased boy, a sum of Rs.10,600/- it-ovvardsii If this amount is not deposited with _:T1"i.a*l by the accused within eight Week's frorn E't'"oday__, theiiiiiilirial Court shall recover the same I _v and i V . V The' revision petitioner-accused shall surrender ecustodyi of the Trial Court for receiving sentence of .7.i_Vnipijris'oVnrnent.
Q____J"\:*-=*~.,,..»«~ 8 A copy of this order. shall be sent forthwith to the Trial Court for information and compliance.
A " :u&ga Mrk/--