Karnataka High Court
Mahabala Shetty vs State Of Karnataka Rep By ... on 30 January, 2009
Author: K.Ramanna
Bench: K.Ramanna
ts) Harapanahalli General Hospita}, they were M and shifted to Davangcre C.G H0spi'ta1,-..bQw§§{'é;% '4t1.§%: VV night at about 230 £1.11; Anasuy:«33fi*nA injuries. Hence case: came' t;;3"'~b¢ régisiercti-V the appcliant who is the dgtjver of for fhc-3 offence plmishable 394% IPC.
To prove its the in all 7 witnesses gs. documents Ex. 13-1 to P~ IQ." no wifncss came in bf: was marktiri. The trial Court after evidence piaced before it, fa1.:13z;.i~i31e gczisgianer 9:" the afonizaaid offences ané ' flfiggédiifigty'; A. the: petitioner to undergo SI for 18 5133 of Rs.1,{300f~ in éctfault, to undergo fiizflicr S!' {we months for the -caffcncc punishable uneirzr sec:ie"n___7:12'z9 3:. 384A IPC. Further, the fifitioner was V :x"§Sf?_}§l.t'.ti£§'}f;T¢1(3f:fl'i ta: undergo SI far 9 months and to pay a fine cf K §%§s.l,£)O{}/- in default, to fiuthcr undergo S} for two months ft)!' the ofihmx: punishable under Section 338 EPC. PSWS. I 8:. :2 who arc: the injured wimcss who. _ unconscious immediately after flit'? accidezgi Ii':-1:ve n9i identified ms pcfitioner as driver t1;:.eT«}icI$ig:I¢,.' the evidence of P.Ws.3 8r. 4 is: not céizgflstent fiafi , discztpancics in their cviden«':.'€"§t_Vi$ that prosecution has failed' ownmz' of the lomy though they It is fuxthar arguzfd that P.W.6 who was neat The pelicct inspector P.W.? : lié-éiii by aliowixlg P.W'.6 to mmpléia is a proceciurai Jim:-guiarity, as sugzh. thé-;..5n"ti17¢ 'vj51{ns;Sté;§uation vifiates. It is furflzer argued V. 'aci.1..3.a§iy irrrzvcstigating thc case: has turrmti 'hé::>;<'stiI§:~'v the entire investigaiziun is taktn away.
"iZ':1.1i1s'i*¥;Vi:*z'.V-V'$j'-»143A'.'fIv1V:13'.t'x;<:{:1 that cmslcr of convicfion and sentence pas4.4$t:s;1V'by {lie {hurts below is iamntct and illegal. Hence, it x V' .. is'p1fay£:"('i to allow thia rcvzisitm pctiiion by setting aside the of oonvictzion and fientanctz passsd by the courts below. C'-
' examined hilllfifilf baforc the court and any ofl;::r"V£§_*it:f1css bcforr: tha Court to prove that the: 'amidst:-_t digs '£9 V any negligcncfi on his part. P.W.3 {?:+?hc§._iS" a1so'--ai1--.e:y¢ witgéss and wimcss to spot mahazafif that* V pctifiancr was rash ncgliggéiat vchicie.
Further, P.W'.4 aiso Ex.P~i2 - spot mahazar has 13{::::':--:1_. _pro$w*éci".i*.{r§:1't$;'{:.« P.Ws.3 8:. S. The wimcsses by thfiv by him 113$ not causéé the.' -lsgmé other vehicle had caused the accidsfii public haw: stoppcd the ve}1r};cZe3_(;>f a.V0cw;sVc€i" filed a false cc:mp}aint. However, " fl'i€:"ré £:cgatcriai'i1A1adc available by the petitioner to prove I "s.'£x=::fi=.&1u::"<::V=,;'T~._}Absolutc1y, there was ma cixcumstance "£0 diahciifive case of prosecution that pfifififlllfll' had Caused €116 éicéideni in qufisfiofl. Evan thtt pcfitioncr has not fiisfiumd his idrznfity as érivcr of the vehicle if: qucsfion. V' bus, the: said defence takttn by the petitioner is without any if} Fizfihar, the Kamataka POBCC Manna}, E, dea-<:1'ib(:s the itzvestigation at item M1232 as fQI}%§;&s:»V:' --1~ "Tbs: Sub--insjpt":etor or u 0f that ?.S. is msponsfblé for mg: i§:xve'stfi.ga'.it3n all the caries fiir
9. Thus, fiom mg .plaiI1.t3f 'a:@¢A,,§3mv§s:ons of law, it is clear that' and cmmrwcred to investigate. 'wi'tho1g.i" 'JMa§"s'{:ra1':c any cognizablct. as such, in the against the petitioner beingka __ihtf:[ invctstigation done by him En finis cagbe vitiatcd. Thus, viewed from anyiazrgle, in e¥au1V10i iiisgaitity or iIl€:()I'I'{2CiI3.€SS in the Qzfisf Etii' <é0~1}vi<:ti<)V£1""':f)asscti against the pctitiancr by the
-_. . V .2 IE. for as the sentence impcscd on the petitioner is cancéiffiéd, bath the Cguxics beiow were right in not sggfiéfezncifig the petitioner separately for the csfibncc fiunishablc undaer Section 2'?9 IPC and fixrthcr, the learned Scssiens Judge was very Iibarai in sentcncing the pctitrloncr 11 forms oflencc punjshablc under Section 30423 and 338 {PC}, V as such the same 3130 dares amt require any ij:if§§f1fh:"9n:t. .3 b. Heme this revzésimi petition fails anti is . «. éisrnaisscd.
The pctiticmer is directed to sutt*gf:ndc;*V-m:f:'<".§rv2'VVthc Courtto undergo sentence forthwiflz. VA Send back the LCRS fosfiigfidth. "