Sushanth @ Sanjay S/O Arjun Naik vs State Of Karnataka Through The ... on 7 September, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sushanth @ Sanjay S/O Arjun Naik vs State Of Karnataka Through The ... on 7 September, 2009

Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY or SEPTEMBER    A *
Before   _ H H
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE Htrpvfmbr  
Criminal Revision Petit_ie--xr Not1v6t>l/  

Between: H H H H'

Sushanth @ Sanjay,

S/o. Arjun Naik, ._ V

Aged about 26 years,    _  V

Occ: Driver. _    I     

R/0. Polem, Goa State. W  511" _. .    '  PETITIONER
[By Sri.Dayanand S. t'$.aik'.,_" '    7 V

And:  _ .  . . .

State of Karnataka;

Through the RamnaVgarHP.,ST .  I ..
Ramnagar, Darwdeli. "     RESPONDENT

(By siif  t};$t1;:1»u'nc2i_o,A ace?)

: , This.Cr§rr1ixi'at'£2ev§s'ion Petition is filed under s.397(1) r/W Sec.401
Cf 'Gr.PC, praying to se.t'aside the order dated 5.10.2004 passed by the
JMFC, Dandeii, in C'1T1".Case 1\Eo.1541/2003 and order dated 10.10.2005

.vpa.sSf;d by the "Court of Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Uttara
Karrﬁada, E§a,rs_2var,"'in Cr1.A.No.90/2004, and etc.

 'ptetititon coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the

2    



{U

ORDER

The petitioner is assailing the order passed by the JMFC,'"f)andeli, in c.c. No.1541/2003 dated 5.10.2004 in convicting the.c..pletitione'r'for offence 1.1/5 279 and 304A of IPC and affirmation of thesnj:e:"e';3de'n'By... Fast Track Court, Karwar, in Crl.A.No.90/O4fdated. in

2. A charge sheet was ﬁled' -against.etitiC:rié1fp:

punishable u/ s 279 and 304A in Q3 Dandeli.

It is alleged in the complaint, atiAlnrnod Excise Check Post near Be1gaumV~Panji petitioner being driver of the tipper, witljioufs..'va pole of check post by the guard, drove the .;tipper'-- in a:lf'rasi~;...and3 negligent manner to cross the check post pole cojnse__qu_e1_ut to which dashed the tipper to the pole. As a resultof in high speed to the pole, the pole suddenly came ' theﬁdeceased to his head and caused griev:_rju§.e;nju'1=ie's dt1e"to whichmhe succumbed to injuries. On the basis of the con'1p1aint;« lvaecuised was tried and the learned Magistrate con.vi.cted and sent_e,nlce.c1l the accused for aforesaid offences. ~ The accused has been sentenced to undergo S.I for one year to pay_llfi1i'ell of Rs.3000/-- and in default sentence of one month for 279 and 304A IPC. In appeal the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court--I, Karwar, confirmed the order of trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, being aggrieved by the same petitioner is in this revision.

4. According to the learned Counsel for petitiE3ner;'ideait}?.oiof deceased is not attributable to the petitioneriasit wa's.ino't--.}§vausedr.duetoe' negligence on the part of petitioner. He furthers argued' 2 has not determined as to whether deathpf deceased actct' accused or is the cause causanﬁa or been' intervening cause which pertain to the chaiir1i----../of catisa;rtio.n:r«_il-le'argued that it is rash and negligent act of deceased the check post pole by without loiikingvior i\}eh'icles and the petitioner alone cannot held' He further argued that as other vehicles were parkedfor the check post, it cannot be said that petitioner has driizen the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

.i the learned Counsel for petitioner and the 'learned High._Court_"_£}o'iernment Pleader and looking into the reasoning giiveni by thei."lea1"riedv 'Magistrate, it is seen that the accident has taken the tipper dashed to the pole of the check post in great speed ip<§ie- hit the deceased. It has also taken note of the evidence of witne--sses PW.1, 4 to 6 who have deposed that they were returning W towards the check post from the telephone booth. At that time check post pole was pulled down and the deceased was proeeedingvo'nl_lt'he side of the gate. When the pole was being pulled up by ripper driven by petitioner came in a great speed and dashed toidthe pole, in turn hit the deceased on the head. P.W.4:.iwhio'wasi duty of pulling the pole at the check post has..dé.13iosed.gltj1a:t:v from Ramanagar side in high spee'-d::"'a.nd V. pole. Consequently the pole hit the dve"ce_ased'i'iés}h'o.iy,i.éis'proceedingilon the side of the pole. PW.5 who was on of time at the check post has also corrobomtedizipthle

6. The ail' ivitnesses goes against the petitioner. All corroborated that the petitioner without waiting the up by PW.-4 completely, he dashed the po.l.e.. resulted in hitting the pole to the deceased;. 'I"hei' pietiticner hasmnot exercised due caution and care while he wasllinearing post and reduced the speed of tipper. The llvearned Magistrate. examined this aspect carefully has come to the .V«justj:conic,lusion;' _ AT-In appeal the learned Fast Track Court Judge also it View taken by the learned Magistrate, and dismissed the big» appeal. The reasoning given by the courts below does not sufferbfrorn any illegality or errors 6%' to call for interference.

7. In the circumstances while modifying the it is ordered that petitioner shall undergo. six months instead of undergoing simple to pay the ﬁne as ordered by the couriti3_v'£;.31Vow. Accordingly, criminal revision petition is aliowed inwpart. Sub/ .ir1iprisonmen_f'fo_r ai-period of i pri:so'rimen't_forV oneyeavr' and

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court