Karnataka High Court
T Hanumantharaya S/O Thippana vs State By Parashurampura Police on 5 February, 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR
CRL.R.P.NO.1028/2009
BETWEEN
T HANUMANTHARAYA
S/O THIPPANA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
DRIVER
R/O T.N.KOTE VILLAGE
CHELLAKERE TALUK .. PETITIONER
(By Sri.: G K NARASIMHAMOORTHY, ADVOCATE )
AND
1.STATE BY PARASHURAMPURA POLICE
CHALLAKERE TALUK .. RESPONDENT
(By SRI NASRULLA KHAN HCGP)
CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION
DATED: 26.08.2008 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.)
AND J.M.F.C., MOLAKALMURU IN C.C.NO. 304/2007 AND
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED: 8.10.2009 PASSED BY
THE ADDL. DIST., & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, IN
CRL.A.NO. 90/08.
This petition coming up for final hearing this day, the
Court made the following
2
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed U/s 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the JMFC, Mollakallumur in C.C.No.304/2007 dated 26.02.2008 and to set aside the judgment dated 8.10.2009 in Crl. A No.90/08 on the file of the I Addl. Sessions and District Judge, Chitradurga dismissing the appeal and while confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Magistrate against the petitioner for the offences U/Ss 279 and 304 (A) IPC.
2. The petitioner was the accused before the Magistrate. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.9.07 at about 1.00 pm the accused being the driver of the bus bearing No KA -16-A 7007 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Shivamurthy who was walking by the side of the road and as a result of the accident, while undergoing treatment, he died in the hospital. Then the complaint came to be lodged against the accused - driver of the bus in Parasuramapura Police Station. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed for the offences U/Ss 279 and 304(A) IPC. The accused appeared before the Magistrate and pleaded not guilty. As 3 such, in order to prove charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses- PWs 1 to 6 and marked 11 documents as Exs P1 to P11. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence that appeared against him in his cross examination U/s 313 Cr.P.C. He has not led any evidence. The learned Magistrate upon hearing the Prosecutor and the defence counsel and on appreciation of the evidence, has convicted the accused for the offences U/Ss 279 and 304 A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for three months for offence U/s 279 IPC and one year for the offence U/s 304-A IPC apart from imposing fine. The judgment of conviction and sentence was taken in Crl. A No.90/08 questioning its legality and correctness before the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. The learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence, has confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate while dismissing the appeal by his order dated 8.10.09. Aggrieved by both the orders of Court below, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.
3. I have heard both the counsel for the complainant and the accused. Perused the records. It is seen from the records, that the prosecution has examined in all six 4 witnesses. Out of six witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW- Nagaraja is the complainant, PW2- Basavaraja, PW3- Pandurangappa.and PW4- Thippeswamy are the eye witnesses to the accident. Their evidence is that on the date of accident, they were also travelling in the same bus along with the deceased. When the bus reached Kaluvehalli bus stand, the deceased and PWs 2 to 4 got down from the bus and the deceased was going to other side of the road and at that time, all of a sudden, the accused drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and thereby the bus ran over the deceased. Though PWs 2, 3 and 4 have been cross examined, nothing concrete emerged out of it so as to disbelieve their version. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are PW5 and PW6 are the Investigating Officers. Ex.P2 is the IMV report which reveals that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect. Ex.P1 is the PM report of the deceased. The learned Magistrate upon consideration of the evidence on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident and resultant death of the deceased is on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence has also come to the same conclusion and dismissed the appeal. The 5 learned counsel for the revision petitioner has failed to point out any illegalities or irregularities committed by the Courts below. The conviction and sentence of the accused by the Magistrate which has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge is based on the evidence placed on record. Therefore, the question of interference by this Court does not arise. There is no merit in this revision petition and hence the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NM