Karnataka High Court
Nhausaheb Bajirao Masal vs The State By Spp Advocate on 8 April, 2009
Author: H.N.Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das
13 man man corner or xannawgsfi' ; { J _
cmcurr 33301! A1-pnAnwAaf'}jj~_a VI '
DATED mm mm am nag: o.m!;g;11rit:;;}. ;; é 7
am-*9as x ' aé 3
THE I-I0!l'BLE MR. Juswzéz. ms
CRIMINAL Rm2;a1on;" .xo.57)2 oos
BETWEEN:
BHAUSAHEE Bégzifiziar. K .5 A
AGE ; 33 mags, mo :=t1.;:..;_c;1;i «
'PAL: 1r§AvEm.,;:)1s'r%;V: 'mam %
MAHAR5sHTRA~*s:r5fmJ .. %
M' 4' V %' V PEFITIONER
(BY $121 MA.N.}U».~1.;}_sTIéI MELED, ADV.)
Tim V
' . V BANGALGRE
BY. SIP. P. AWGCATE
GENERAL?) OFFICE
.. . RESPONDENT
' _ '{13y«}s*§?5. ANAND K 1~zAvALG1MA'm, HCGP} THIS PEITITION IS FILED U/S 397 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO; SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND O-RBER DATED 20. 12.2007 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-III & ADDL. S.J., 57"'"'""""' BELGAUM, IN CRL.A.No.49[2007 cor4§1Ra.sijam"'Li"%V;~?j*i~§E JUDGMENT AND ORDER op CONVICTION DA?'-EDA' PASSED BY awe, SANKESHWAR IN C.C.NQ..$6"{"-,!Q6;.:* _ THIS PETITION comma ms, DAY, THE COURT MADE THE':FQLLOW.'§NG: ' .
This criminal ag ' st the judgment C.C.No.56'Z/2006 passed by and sentencing the under Section 279,
333 a§d~£1:ie judgment dated 23.12.2007 in CrL£;.N9.4§iO?' the Fast '1'rack_Court~III, Belgaum . g"'t}A:1c jtiéifiént of the Trial' Court.
2. petifioner is the accused and respondent is the comfslgitxant hcfom the: Trial Court. In this judgment for the of convenience, the parties are refened to by their status _ h6forc the Trial Court.
c*W
3. On 28.12.2005 at about 3 p.m., the 'gvéz-as driving the tempo beefing ztgistrafion No. M}ie_12{:CEiA§'1x'f4"A7' gg; National Highway No.4 in a rash b dashed against the motor bev€uj1:1g_.No. I which was proceeding in fiunt't':$ithe Oil V account of am aociicnfitlxc riflér' moibr' by name Ashok sustained injuries on the way to hospital. The'f:§1Iion injuries and the mote): Stfiemly damaged. On i11forn:1:$'§i%'«c'$V11';TA ti:-.§ against the accused in cr.No.é4g'/«as gaunishable under Section 279, 338_ and 3e4gA. investigation, the jurisdictional i§'i§5ti.,_ghargcA"s1is%ei in c.c.No.567/zme. Before the 'I'r1a' 1 examined ten witnesses and got marked The Trial Court on appreciation of the oral and evidence on recozd passed the impugned "ii A.»§*:ii&;_§;xne11t exmvicting the accuscd fbr the ofience punishable ;un.:1er Section 279, 338 and 3044 IPC and mntenccd him to pay a fine of Rs.2,600]- and to under go six months imprisonment. Aggricvcd by this judgment of the Trial Court, the accused/petitioner filed an appeal in cr1.A.N_o}49 the same calm: to be dismissed. Hence, _ by the accused.
4. Heard the okie perused the entire
5. was driving the tempo in No.4 on the date of the iI1CidCI}:]y.f it is not in dispute that the with an accident with the motor cyclo and on {Inc accident, the rider of the motor V. . pillion rider-F'.W.6 sustained injuries. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the driver the motor cycle had taken 'U' turn on the National A ":. ' to enter into service road and in the process he hit the égimpo in question. This contention of the Icarned Counsel for 'the: petitioner is not acceptable to me. Firstly, Ex.P12 is the sketch marked in the evidence and the same is not disputed. This document further indicates the position:
vehicles and place of accident on the National document do not sugest the existtii1ee'of any Visor' T the motor cycfist taking 'U' hi_e 313 statement had not stated the eicci;ien%t:'inVV'qfie§tisen had' taken place on 'negEi§ge1.1n¢e 6£.§he éifiveref the motor cycle. Thirdly, this §h§:;:y%' guggested to the witnesses except P.W.2.
Both the of P.W.i2 and have ~ 'I if.-hat of 2 in cmssdaxamination also er:-t of the accused. Therefore, there is he argument advanced by the Ieamed V. fqr tee'-Vpefifiraner that the accident in question had. ' taken -.pi2Ice d11_e to the negligence of the driver of the motor
1. M ' The concurmnt finding of both the Courts below is ">§§gp'§on by evidence on mcond and 1 find no justifiable glound dam to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the is hereby dismissed.