Sri S Balaji S/O Subramanya vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2009

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri S Balaji S/O Subramanya vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2009

IN THE HIGH coum' 0? KARNATAKA AT BAN<3~AL0_§§§'~V.,, DATED mrs mg 2ND DAY OF' APRIL * BEFORE 'THE HOWBLE MR.JUsTiéE Is73'R.A§vIﬁ" M>jj" '& CRIMINAL REVISION 'i3'EfI'1"I"i:C)'}1f'*»3'VVV"';':'-Z40.1'f)'?i'5£/2007. BETWEEN:

S.BAL.PsJI, V Sf€}.SUBRAMﬁ.N"2'7_A, . " AGED 35 YRS,__. ' » oc:<::.1:>mvE§2," , * » ¢ OLD ADEDRESS ROI _ .. "

BARADIR STRE'E'.'TI?,'. i'f _ RA NiPET,':vELLt_IR' a ' " TAMILNADU. _ ' NOW R;'A'I'.1*~;s:;s.;.>,% . A _ MUNEVEERAPPA CQMPOUN 24m Mam", BENIN!) BAEQK 0:? _BA}?O§}§§ COLONY, " .

F'JT'FENAH.£'xLL§-,A. '--,J.P.f€AGzl.R' TFTEPHASE, BA¥¢GALC>}%Zf3} + ..?e,_ * , PETETIONER (BY's3RI'wAN:L ;:~;:'?.j,:12\.«;7.%s.f»2, ADV. FOR SR} $HARANAPPA MATTER, .m:>v,; ' ' s;*rgr:'$'"0F KAENATAKA, * mi z<1§;s;«;NARAJ;asAeAR RS. . RESPQNDENT {BY SR1 B,BALAK.E2§SHNA, H.C.G.P.§ iiiiiat THIS CRL,R.P. IS FILED EH8. 39'? 85 40} CR.P,C. PRAYING 'PG 8'? ASIDE THE JUEIGMENT 2%ND ORDER BT13/iCi;'G6 PASSED BY THE ADDE..S.J., MANDYA, EN CR'L.A.NO,81/O5 AND ALSO

-34:-

Aggricvcd by the same, peﬁsiticner pmfcrrcti an apptal bcfarc thc Icazncd Sessions Judge and aﬁcr for rcapprcciaﬁQ;1VT'§1"Tt}1c evidence piaccd an meant}, Icaxnccti Sessions 1116 appeal conﬁxming the order of CO}£I\*iCti011.. 3v:'I':1du b passed by the triai Court. Hence, this?' 'V S. It is an undisputed fact that Vibe pcfiti0§§e13 >' drive»: of {hit goods ttmpq at the his vchicie was proceeding Rﬁﬁé near Bciagoia MNPM Circle. Hg' bikes which were coming czonscqucnﬂy, Puttaﬁngaiah succumbed to the injuries 'ié'.Ws.1 and 2 sustained simph: " The cvidetncc of pmsc:<:t:.t.ion witnesses h2V1V§--I:_fécnV{§1ai§:3:é1t%é;iy {iiscusscd by trial Court as wail ,~ as ~:.§€§3:_f11c§:l Sé"3a3iQ;_1§,Juégc in depth in their judgments. Lof rpati near the SC€I1C of oﬁimcc is about 22 ii:

gcaods tempo was prnccediixg in opp-::3s:itc V of going tawards left side cf the road, the u u ' " §'f%hL§C1€"¥Vt;tv2ii to the cxtmmc right side and» dashw against the '. m<'ji{>f Conscquenﬂy, Laxmamma and Puttaiingaiah ; :; ,. '7 who were going in the motor cycic died at the spqt and 2 who wen: going in another rntzttixjjcyclta 3.":-€;ﬁ3;r;{3;'_Vvf}:'i«'t:w:1I1{)t<;>1"u cycle of the deceased sustained gxicvﬁiigs below rightly accepted the cvidé:a1_f§£:~..pf 'who V L' are the best wimcsscs tq. 'say' rcgagjd t;:§"ihc:A :11:-§a1:me::r in which the goods tempo ""'tV}§¢:'»'V:1:>ctViﬁ0ncr. It is a Concurrent ﬁndi31g {s;;ord;:d On account (sf rash anéh. two persons su{:cumb¢;i__t§;» sustained injuries.

The: IMV accident was not on account of any II1CC}1a.I31;'%§Zé1«,C1€!fi3C:f.S¢ ' »_'4i£"'i':=-s:-;ﬁ°:V.'.is, :10 delay as such to ﬁle tht: complajini. Pﬁisfs. AAIVV ixavc sustained both simpic and giieyéiis iﬁjurits, Thcrefozt, contention sf Icaxztmd C-tmnscl for V. due to the ccmttrslbutazy ncgligencc of the ride-rA caxmot 136 accepted. Henct, thti order cf ' _§§£3.nvicﬁ9':L,}§:'e1sstd by the Cnurts below agajzzst pciiﬁoncr far ﬂu: oﬁcnccs are liable in he cornfizrmcd.

6. As far as sentence imposed on petiﬁozzter is faonccrncd, the trial Court scntxznccd the petitioner even for an oﬁencc under Section 5279 sf IPC which is a minor effence If': .

é>~.;' W' /"*'_7a'w _.--<2 ..........

5.', . «««««« " _ x G':

I.' merges with the major oﬁcncc, The learned totally erred in conﬁrming the ord:ii€mi£%hi<:}::--<«i$.;<}jé§£t§ft¢ modiﬁed and the order of sentence an offence undcr Sectigm 279 (Sf liable tgﬁ 'V The order of sentence fQS"'i}:ié:'dfF~?1}C€S ﬂii11;icr§Scciions .337, 333 IPC and under ,134-B rfw and under Section }$'? f§f_ ﬁves not rcquirt:

any modiﬁcaf§~313i';v on petitioner by the tria} {>:;mr:{" }S€:cti0n 3{)4--A of IPC is ttxccﬁsivﬁanri' Considering the facts and circumstanchs £::1vo1i>'t:d' case of the manner in which the _VVaccid¢I._%«i "took piéiesf-:V',V: am cf the censidcrcé apiniocn that the V. V.Vo14}:ittV:"_ W'c:»f .i§i:§:}11%{'L;I$._{ ?€: imposed on pcﬁtioner dﬁecting him to .:§3::«::;*g;;TA is to be modiﬁed.

,_Acc!«A::;i§ing}y, the mvisien pcﬁﬁan is allowed. The " order of conviction passed by the ilourts bciow ,a'l'In?VV§;}*..":5'|fT;-.":,13}' conﬁrmed. '3'hc order of ﬁentcnctt passtti against v:{;c;§p«ctiﬁ"oner for an eﬂimczts undcr Scctzion 279 is hereby set iaside. The scntcnsm passed against the petitioner for the oﬁcncc pxmishablc under Sﬁction 337, 338 of H36 and Scctittsns 13443 and 134-B I"/W' Section 187 of the K am hcreby conﬁrmed. Tim ' petitioner] Accuscﬁ far an 056130:

394»-A er we is hereby modiﬁcd is.v§3ez13:§s1a«t;:§idVV«f(%uiii;1{icrgo M' 8.1. for six months and to' gay ':'1Q$VVSV'V,.v2."€}(){)"/'#VVi;d';';VE11¢ shag undergo SJ. for a pczriod 0% offence.

8. The geﬁifiencrgz' "fQEf9m tzrial Court adﬂﬁn1%}day§h§§ﬁ$€g§fs§ﬁ§§cﬁi _ W AAAA Sd/", *mvs

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court