Basavaraj S/O Vaijanath Kaplapur vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 July, 2008

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Basavaraj S/O Vaijanath Kaplapur vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 July, 2008

Bench: N.Ananda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED: THIS THE 09TH DAY 09 JULY _

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSFE€.*51_4I§.A'l$iMAI§i);§'§.'4  4'

CRIMINAL REVISION PETIToN%%No.5o8% 

BETWEEN:

Basvaraj   V .
Agedab01%:i"24'4--Y        
Son ofVaijaI1£3;tI3;_ 1<ap:apar,L ',  '
Ooc:    
Residing atTAK*;i1_shn¢aor,--<'  _
Taluk":~,Aurad~B',' » '   =

Dist: Bidar. '     

(By Sri. B.C.VMud'<iappa,. Advocam)

 V 

  'Fiﬁ:  soffiaxnataka
  Throzlgha the ~C_,i1f;:lc Inspector


Cixcie, Kusifnbor Police
Station; Tafuk: Aurad-B,

' '  Districti 'gﬁidar,

nR.'3pI!':Sﬁnt6d by the

" Stan: Public Prosecutor,

 %  Court Building.
 Bangalore-I.

.. PETYFIONER

.. RESPONDENT

This criminal revision pctition is am 11/8.397(1) Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment of conviction «Es 2 order of sentence dated 27.10.05 passed by Au;rad~B, Bidar Dist. 111 C.C.No.187[05 and _':ilJ:_6;g2!1'1V'1ﬁ.-3.f_li2"_ dated 31.1.2006 passed by the 13.0., FIC+7~II__I, aidar * Cr1.A.No.61/05 and acquit the petitioner. This criminal revision pctitioIi,,_ t11isday.theCourtmadethefoI1oW'i1?~8'"-, ' " «. "

The Trial gtpﬁéilate. have recorded concurrent that occumed at about 1 1.00 a.;x3;;*<)__1x 1 Kuslmoor road was due maxi cab beating No.KA-38/93é..'by--.the't_ 0 5

2. Th: in aﬁ follows:

about 11.00 a.m. the accused was d1'ivi1jg" Na-.KA--38/938 at a high speed on When the vehicle was proceeding 0 ~--I§Lishnoor'ViI3, petitioner lost control over the vehicle, as 'vc}_tic1e went oﬂ' the road and turned upside down. ?.,.f§7 to 12 and 14 and other passengers sustained V. and gncv' ous injuries and one Namdcveo sustained '.0 x.

grievous injuries and died at Bidar Government Hospiﬁai. A complaint was lodged against petitioner. The Invésﬁgﬁﬁzgg oﬁccr visited the spot, pzcpamd the spot statements of witnesses. The medical certiﬁcate and postmorfem Namdcveo. The vehicle was L' Inspector. Aﬁer complgﬁon of was ﬁlcd against punishable under Sections 279, 33?, ~

3. li1_dn_icr the guilt of petitioner, as many as $35 _witiiesvses' "Weft and 17 documents were . V. * 'i'h¢ did not lead any evidence. Sri.B.C.Muddappa, learned counsel for and the learned Govcmmcnt Pleader for State. S. The subnxissions of learned counsci for petitioner are follows:

'N c:Jv- I3/-~£~ (1) In the: motor vehicle inspection report as exhibit £312 it is shown that front lcﬁ spring plate and second piate were cut Thcrcfom, possibility of amidgmt having tisﬁé' = to sudden mechanical

(ii) All the Wibacsscs h2iv:':_ ;

vehicle was being bfat none of the witnesses V Vwas being driven a rash V '» V' ' ﬂit.

in the ab<._:acn<_:c_A in proof of rash and negligéigt the courts below WfI;1'€ not petitioner guilty of mm?

Tim not just1ﬁcd' in sentencing pctiﬁonfr oﬁimces under Sections 279, 337 " 338" sﬁhen the petitioner was sentenced for "'1[1u'\5é1.1k'!~17."$.'3:3'e11ce i.e. Secﬁon 304-A WC» 5

6. The kzamed Government Plcadcr submissions in justification of the impugned jt*;tig11V11?§j19c ;" .' '

7. Before adverting to sub1:ii§sir;n§ 1'ouf'TT"

for petitioner, it is necessaﬁr mfmj a _§.dtig';zﬁ§:;1t _;§2f ti2e ' L. Supreme Court reported in Ai:é,:419s9 ts<:[:931 {gram 01? KERALA vs. PU'fifUMA':§\lAV-- .A "I.LLAAT}i JATHAVEDAN NAMBOODIRI) Awhemi'1a._._t heV é:g;i;c1;::e% has held with Inna' 'taﬁons of mm' 'matztcr of appreciation of ev1d' cncc when c%on¢1;'_AmTA " ~T-jg: mcéfxded by the 'l'nal' Court and the ﬁrétgppeﬂafé 111" the above decision at paragraph 5 it 1;c1d;'- = % ' F5, ;;aa%:zg%ex:aq:ined' fhé impugned judgment of 1'h¢é----a11d bearing in mind the the Ieczrned counsel for the ,. yartiese, no hesitation to omne to the v._¢0nc!usio'i3 file: in the case on hand, me High gm Fags exceeded its revthionai junsaicrion. In % 'i_£s"'rfeiiis:ionaI juﬁsciiaion, she High Court can and! }"o,,r_ examine the record of any proceedings for purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of my ﬁnding, sentence or order. In other words, the is (me of supervisory jurisdiction High Court for oonreding qf A Bu: the said remsionaz power be with the power ofan a;Jp§2Iktté"(?_{iuﬁ 3 treated even as cc seoof¢d: }'.ppelIat¢3 Onriinazily, therefore, 1:; 1;;«:ru::.1 I.t1'iwt be for the High mg to ._the evidence and 00:11:; to its the same when alfeéidy appreciated by 91.5-..?g0€'H Judge feature is brought to 'n§1iag"-..;HIg§h Court which would o fhe'm::'sé'V._tantarn«, to grass miscarriage' cf V. , ' ."':'8;.,///\'%\s from evidence of PWs--2, 7 to 12 and of spof mahazar and sketch, at the fimc of "g,'/gident. went off i ﬂt_hc road and turned turtle at a of 15 feet ﬁmn the road. Then: is consistency in thc A veﬁj/Litience of PWS. 2, 7 to 14 at the time of accidc:n.t,'t11c j;rcl1ic1e was being dﬁzven at a high speed. PW-2 has deposed ' that tbs accused was driving the vehicle in a speed, my p\./A/ﬂL'€.»£1,-\_' therefore, the vehicle turned turtic. _ deposed that the vehicle was bcigg = " = therefonc, the vehicle turned trurtlﬁne:ar .P(tf{sh}i¢or4'£134' 1 1 has deposed, petitioner was _véh.ic1c. mg L * . he had switched on tape xecoxuiaf m- 1;;.- ﬁg: pefmioner to drive the vehiclsc to sound of tape reoon1e1f._ vﬁﬁﬁoncr had taken off hands Sagar Supari [Gutkha]. ::..a,§..g over the vehicle. The vehicle leﬁ roac*.[ana_%m:%;;ec; V

9. The ft-.1? péiiﬁoncr referring to these val'-;a"1ioI 1s of h€§;i3G!l¢.W'i'tBCSScS would contend that them"-isi ;1V1Ac"3 » .c;ILt;¢hiv1*:.;';?"':-;videncc in proof of rashncss and ' ncé. The evidence of above witnesses is _ _iim:_:o11siste13,t. ..

not in dispute and cannot be disputed that to 12 and 1?! were travclhn' g in vehicle involved in The basic version of PWS. 2 and 7 to 12 and 14 is we c:/!r)""""~' £>~WéL.;

consistent. If there are minor variations in "it_ may be due variaﬁons in their perception. V' been taken aback by the sudden variations are bound to _

11. The Motor» .zVehiek":' "who been exazmm ed as PW----20 the accident be inspected found that the accident auddee failure. The learned that ﬂoat left side, mam' and 'mi cut into 3 p1eees' , therefore the ;1%=1a:o 'eiidden mechanical failme whiefi PW--20 was the motor vehicle the accident he had inspected report as per exhibit P12. P'W--20 g_ aaecklent was not due to any sudden T cmss-exarnnatizon, it has not been suggested that the bneakm' gofmam and second wring plates av oilvvt"/""'" "

into 3 pieces was the cause of aaccidcnt. On it has been suggested to PW-20 that he had the vchicic and on msnueskms Vk submitted motor vehicle _ P12. ks j A L

12. In a decision crimes 443 Bombay (salman 'it heﬁ filus;

' ' VAi'35~it,'£g'---"V"tzr:'tr2esses driving the car at a Viziga eying to take turn be lost he:esaseen.*:--e1esej:§:e.[eehieIe and rammed into the shopﬂu ﬁésult one person who was " sieeping en staircase was killed and four 2 injured and even though the ._ subseqmmi stated that in spite of given the accused ignored the " the act of me accused dearly would fan zeiihin the deﬁnition qf a reckless and negligent as: not done with any premedizetien and as such provisions of Section 304, Part II are not attracted Hence, the framing qf charge under Section 304, Part His Iiable to be quashed. 3;\/L Ovw Ls.

N 0/ 10

13. In ﬁgze case on hand, the accident §<;'€i{'V\« the vehicle Wasﬁdriven on a emwcied road. "i'.'.1ueref_r's':*LeIv:=.T'x1<T)_ other intervening factors. The zac-cid'ez1_t--,was. 'not glue tr» sudrien mechanical failure. : The prosecution is consistent as~v...4fo..»the (Sf éecident. V Merely because the that the vehicle was driven at be presumed there was 2194 " on the part of petitioxtcr. speed is not a decisive ilactokj ofandﬁiegligence on part of driver. Therefore, I do"n_o t to interfere with the judments qi' the ee{11'ts V' is judgments of the trial court and the 'ﬁrst that accused was convicted and _ for eﬁrrriees punishable under Sections 279, 337, IPC. The evidence on record would estabiish of the passengers had suﬁered simple injuries and 'V "the passengers suﬂexed grievous injuries, one of the 11 passengers died as a result of the accident. Viiip fault could be found with judgments of the " -- K As far as offence concerned, it is nctcessaxy Vtc._: st:;1»te tbs has" V been sentenced for oi1'gncss*s{xc}}1 337 and 338 I'/W 304(A) IPC. fiac sentenced for an oifcnce sentence passed by punishable under Sccﬂksn .-- rest of the impupecl is

-- .. petition is dismissed.

C;,:,_.,.': s Sd/~ Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court