Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Suresh Karna S/O Vijayananda Rao on 25 June, 2010
IN TIE HIGH COURT OF' KARHATAKA AT BAN DATED *1':-as THE 25th DAY OF .3033. m:>1<;2-%'% ' ~ BEFORE um E-IGIVBLE MR. JUSTICE T1
mm STATE 0? xnnrwafram f V BY3UB-H'l'SP'ECTOROFPOL1)CE _ -. my mi 312: -
3; 0.vuAYAxAmm1=mQ "
AGED;§BGIIT3?'-'EVEARS: mmem. mm Nllbnafififl-'JR.V x;z::.*1jm<:.'r: PRADESH N X Rasmnmam ~ % {Bx SR1 vgiénvn KUMAR AND sm KM. SI-EVA REDDY,
-- V mvs.;%_ * mrs cmamax, APPEAL ms mm U15 373(1) as (3; = QR.__P.C BYTEE STATE P.P. ma THE MATE PRAYING THAT "-'rH3;s Hozmm comzr HAY BE amen TO (mam LEAVE in ms AN AP?EAL AGAIHBT THE JUDGELENT IIATED 07.04.2%'? P.8.83ED IR GRL.A.!'l'a. 332] 2006 0N T% FILE OF T% I ADIDL. S.J., KQmR«hGQ THE RTHBEKI8 I ACCUSED OF' THE OFFENCES PIIIHHER BWTIOR 279 A333 304 A 0? WC.
TI-H5 .r APPEAL COLIIHG OR' FOR EEARIHQ THIS DAY, THE COURT BELIVERED 37% V me appellant] State has chaaemgad @ V of the respondem for the seeum 279 and 304m IPC % Additional Senaziam Juagg,xn1gr. i%'% version unfoldgéiiv 1: is 4.30 a.m.,, the drove tho larry beam 5;é;fe41U.5s32 on the Caudapn Katamacmnahally gate in a : manna' an ax: endaw human life oi?" may to any person and in the: H V' ':11; 'dar {sf the samba bean:-13' Reghtzmtinn _ 3-523 and caused death of its rider on the .V -spat.
s.'rnawmph:minmpect afthia inczidentwas bdgedbyF'W.1,theaon.efthc=deomsedanathmftea- ixxuesfigationwazaheldhythepolicewha heldtfaeepatg, sir' malwar Ex.P.2 in preeema of the amaating wimeaa-§a,T drawn the spot warms: and mm the 5°53? of the d%ed as per Ex.P.3. The K scfi of the occ1.1r1mwe was Indian Meriaor vemcle report, _j:'.x.f";~'?_: "!-I.n*as. Postxnnrtsam was held an the the statement of the L ma complantism of the cama tn be fikxl puxfahablc
4. rweecuticn mm PWa.1 1;:_>_13 documents Ex2s.P.1 to ' P..'3 smmfit of the accused was 313 Cr.P.C.. he has takcn the decfienceevidencewna lead % !__:ut1I:c gbt1_A7m.arhed the doeumem 3:131 -- aomxadamen % of cv:.4. Tm 'I'na1' Cmart afiax haanng' an appreciafion cf the mat:-gm on award eonvicmd Swtbm 279 and 304(5) 1.P.C. and aid him to uzxiergoimpwianmexxtazxdwpaytmfixzm. by the eonvicflon and aenmnm. the tmponclent appmachad the Saasium Clout-t in Cr1.A.ITo.3.32I the mid appeal mm to be albwed on mm-its j aside the mmmmo" ' noftte V '4
5. Wand by the A the state has '
5. I have Court Guam and the Counsel __ -- '
7. my eomidecration is:
' . the and
-- ::_'y§ta.*i1gc :'_jaoquiWg the mapondent for ofihnca punishable: undm' Z 279 and 304 (A) at' me. is illegl and pervm-as?'
-- It is thss contention of the learned Hgh Court: Pimder that PWa.2 ha 4 am the aya wfmessers, who: oomktantly stated in ma: wfieme: abouttImranhaM@l21[mactandtheide:nitynft1;:<.; v./' 5 accused. Thetrialoourtwaajuawiadonthebasia of tksezcisntarialplaoedazzxmcxxrciitaaawardfithg oonvictian. It as his oontemion that PW.1 is h the fined who k :3. hearsay wfimsesam appellate mm ought not w evidmm ofsuch a witness.
meonsmmcy discloaead in tin: ezaf the investigation tlm mad is not as wittma in conaisfiflntv gutmm that aoquittafixag Iimtnring the aonvimon gmm b,..h.. mmu%t.
learned comma: £01' the . fin j%t of tha lower
2 appefl-a' contends that the %acut:inn has kientity of thb aocsusad and rash and r -* fin act and luwm' appellate court in juntzifiged in
10.Ihavewmm1fiedtheevidence1edbyth¢ prmecufisn. Sokraatlnspotmalmmaraxxifiae 6 sketch am corwe.-«ma, the prasecutian has produced firm at Ex.P.2 aw Ex.P.6 respwtivuly. The pause} thaw: we docummu reveal that the mad at the % the accident runs north scuth. The km-y at the aaacidmt was prooeedm Bangakorc to Caudapa. If perused, he states trmttlzg aaat went am thh fact in wins not treated nothing '3 clarw. Sc-. __rs>ad at the apot of that:
made" 111;, rum" north is not made though PWs.2 tn 4 are the imonaiatemy an reocrd could have , re-exami ' theeyewxttm sea. list:
V made by the pmaeczution in this regard. . aspect of tm matter 'm mrmerrxad, the of the mvcsmaflm owner, tbs sketch drawn tlw «spot malmmr hefi and the conmzm are inaeonaiaatent with the vmfion cf the aye witnasam am there£oredoubta1-isesasregnrdstlzezcxzaxmsag 7 accident arm also the diractirm of tha road at the: place. of the aacmfidw.
11. Further more, E1: the complaint Ex.P.1 PW1 the son cf the deceased, it in status! cam" is tr: tm spot after the accident arfi V' to know the name of the: drivmf as Kuta@1,Andhra Pradash. mg: utgm, eacamination that at the app: of to knzw about the name of and at that the driver am: got it mm: " aw an-esma the said aocuma tha custody. It is in the " qf:Ffl..11"" ofthe brry, am the drum"
mmele at tho date at the accident E : the cuumdy of the Veficle was takaen ' " _o n appliéamn filed by aaid Krhhna and the owner of 44 - PWJ1. When I-"V3.1 smhm that he wan t at the spot arm tm amid-mt and he e.xx:1u1red' eametolmawtmnazneaftlwdrivca-waschiini Krhmm,Kum@1fiAmma&adumme 5 brought on record through P'W.11 E imomhtent with the 'winn uf PW21. The complaint % by earliest infornaawn to the police and there as V. the version ofthe proeectzfln at the Iamr » 'M M
12. So far as the: man nfthe 1 it is for the firat time after new +mi131ng_ fw veh1c.1e' , who five 9. d1fiemnt' mm' as wan drivkg the vehicln The:
prosecution did not cross.
mmw identity of the W 1},' mm 2-emamed'
mwtm11¢:nge&%ax;a :1; "Es nawmmm with the exvidzence ¢£ circumtanaes, bmught an material is irxoonammfly rake as regards the ilnaoivemazt of the * accident.
' . It is thew ckcumamrm. whiah were wmhcad Iowa appellant ctmrt in settim aside than crdw of and g-anwg acquittal. 'Iharefar¢, I dc mt %