Karnataka High Court
Surensab S/O Abdulsab Tahsildar vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2011
Dk_Ie'i'ITW«'?1iitl.V
IN THE HIGH CoURT OF...K,A'RNIi\;FAIxi4g» ,
CIRCUIT BENCH A'l'{DHARW"AD" I
DATED THIS THEBggr5IpéIy JUN}_ji2_OolI I'
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTI_C--E AISI
CRIMINAL REvIsI.oN P.E"TI='.li'il'Olll\l'<1\fllo.2iO 314/2:008
BETWEEN: 3 C "
Suresh s /o Abdulsab:Ta;h-siildarg-,_ I
Age 25 years,~Dri_ver_:. ' "
R/o Kerur_..T'al:
Dist: Bagalkoj;."'__ . é 3'
V " PETITIONER
[By Sri"S"." ilf;/[_itta:lal:odIVV.&; s1?i"""s';'C. Hirernath, Advs.)
I he State of
Represented by S.l_3P,_ "
High' Court Buildings,
RESPONDENT
ii [By sfi :Anand K. Navalgirnath, HCGP) 'l'l'Ii'_s.__cri'rninal revision petition is filed under SIe.ction..3C{r"/ of Cr.P.C. praying to set-aside the irnp'ugned' " judgments dated 11.6.2008 passed in Crl.A'LNH_o~.53/2007 on the file of Fast Track Court No.Il Bagalkot, confirming the Conviction of the petitioner by " ._th.e_oJudicial Magistrate First Class, Badami, in Criminal Case No.8/2005 and acquit the petitioner for the wolffences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, and etc. 2 _ ,, This criminal revision petition coming' ' 'ion _ hearing this day, the Court made the following: L' r i ORDEE3 The petitioner has chz3l_l'e.ngedi'~his sentence for the offences Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the accident by driving the vehicle in t.7I{1anner.
2. the purposes of this revision if g I l'tis'-- about 2.30 p.rn. on Malagi-- Kerur of about 4 Krns from the Police'Station' thepetitioner was driving the jeep bearing regist.ration"'..._No.MLL--1482, in a rash and negligent I_1T&_11ner:"andf.l'Vth'ereby the vehicle capsized on the side of the~..roa_d'c.iiausing injuries to PWs.3, 4 and 6 to l3 and in the circurnstances, an inmate of the jeep i.e. PW--l ~..s'ubrnitted complaint Ex.P.l, and thereafter the police ii ..._.dfficer visited the spot and held the rnahazar Ex.P.2 in the presence of the witnesses. The injured witnesses were shifted to hospital for the purpose of treatmene The vehicle was examined by... the V'{2'vev1'_fi.ic1e_ inspector. On collection of the Zdociiiinents the purpose, a charge sheefcarne tobe the petitioner herein for the offenc_e"s».Vafo_resaid.«
3. During trial; _the pi*oise.c11ti.on examined PWs.1 to 1~'S~A,...aii~1d:=.ir1: .their2"'iié'vid.§iiice got marked documents. ~to«_P._p17._'.. if; The statement of the accused -iirecordedi_:'ii:r_1de1'~Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has taken ..t_ot_a1_* denial.
4. ix"-«Thepitrialihéiourt after hearing and on ap..joi*eci_ation o'f"vv-material on record, convicted the 3 pe'titio'n4er_for'the aforesaid offences and ordered him to undergo imprisonment for two months and to payu of Rs.1000/-- for the offence punishable under iSe3C:t.ion 279 IPC and ordered lesser sentence for the ihoffeflice under Secptio s 337 and 338 pc. All the SET] €1'1C€'S W€I'€ or €'I'€ 110 Fun concurrent y
5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed Cr1.A.53/2007 and the sentencet gf imprisonment for offences punishable under Sections': V' 279 and 338 of IPC is reduced :_'¢"}5ne« by the concurrent findingspof conviction ~senvtericpe'~_ ordered by the Courts bei¢'w, the---
petition has been filed'.._
6. 1 have heard.theiiejarnedhiiounsel for the petitioner "
7; ari'se.s*ior my consideration is, "Wheth,er" 'hand order convicting the petitioneirafor, o.ff'enuces punishable under Sections 279, -337 33.8' IPC and the sentence thereon ordered V' ._ by"i:tthe:,._cAourts beIo'W"vvarrants any interference? ' as the rash and negligent driving is concernedgi the prosecution relies upon the evidence of PWs.3i,"4, 6 to 13 who are the inmates of the jeep and have sustained injuries in the said accident. The injury " "certificates have been produced at Ex.P.3 to 13.15. It is the consistent Version of all the witnesses that the driver drove the jeep in high speed and the Vehjcfi capsized on the road causing simple in_jJ.1ri_e»sp s_om'e"
persons and grievous injuries toilonelpersonilppp' "
9. Though the learned tldounsel the speed of the vehicle been statefd any of the witnesses, the was proceeding on the road of which is within the knoVvlpedge:;A_'of pé£i£11oni¢§§'§'h1y. He has not explainedaccept the cause and th€f€lOf€;' could-"'lbe drawn under the pr0ViSV:i\(3"n']?Z"'0f "Indian Evidence Act about rash andlVn..egligfen__t'l The*M.o_t0r Vehicle Inspector has examined ' issued report as perEx.P. 16 and he is of lthe-.i'opiii.ii.onV?'g:=.Vthat the accident was not due to any defect.
Though there is some delay in filing of the l (complaint, the delay itself is not a ground to discard the l' = .---evidence of the prosecution witnesses unless the petitioner--accused establishes that the delay was taken to disadvantage by the prosecution. So far as ths manner of the accident is concerned, all . have consistently stated about thpeprash' driving and therefore, I am petitioner has not made to warrant interference vvith the_V,4_ord_er_,_of for the aforesaid offences. it p if 2
12. So far as the I Appellate for one month for under Section 279 and _v the fact that the majority; have suffered only simple injuries that '*.on'ly one person has sustained 2' griexfotis. inj,uriesi,V"l"'think the interest of justice would be I inetl if_t'h_e" sentence is reduced to 15 days imprisonment to,p'a:j. fine of Rs.500/--, for the offence under Sections 279 and 338 IPC each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. So far as the sentence for the offence punishable und r section 337 IPC is concerned, it is herew/' con irmed.