Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 86 (KAR)

R. C. Harisha v. State by Hassan Rural Police

2012-01-30

V.JAGANNATHAN

body2012
Judgment : V. JAGANNATHAN, J: 1. This revision of petition is by the accused who has been convicted by the trial court in respect of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and also consequent sentence imposed by the trail Court namely, 6 months imprisonment and Rs.1,000/- fine for an offence under Section 304-A of IPC and 3 months imprisonment for an offence under Section 279 of IPC. In addition, Rs.500/- was imposed as fine to be paid as compensation to the family of deceased. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that, on 31/12/1995, the petitioner was driving matador van bearing registration NO. KA-06-4352 and near Maranahalli border by the side of Lakshmi Coffee Curing Works on Belur-Hassan Road, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the above vehicle by the petitioner, one person by name Nandisha who was walking by the side of the road was hit by the vehicle and the person died at the spot. At that time, the deceased was accompanied by his father Sundaresha. 3. In order to prove the aforesaid charge against the accused, following the accused pleading not guilty, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and 7 documents were marked in evidence. No evidence was let in on behalf of the accused. The trial Court accepted the prosecution case and accordingly, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as mentioned earlier. The lower appellate Court confirmed the trail Court’s Judgment by dismissing the petitioner’s appeal. 4. Heard on the petition filed challenging the judgment of the Courts below. 5. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is some discrepancy in the evidence, in as much as, whether the deceased was walking on the left side or right side of the road is not very clear and therefore, the Courts below cold not have convicted the petitioner. Excepting this, no other serious defects or infirmities is pointed out in the judgment of the Courts below. 6. Having gone through the evidence on record, it is established that the deceased was going along with his father i.e., CW-5 Sundaresha and the evidence of the said witness clearly reveals that the vehicle driven by the petitioner dashed to the boy Nandisha and the dead body was lying at 10ft away from the footpath and the tyre marks were from up to 90ft. The trail Court took note of the said eyewitness evidence and as well as position of the vehicle and the marks at the place of accident and held that, but for the rash and negligent driving on that part of the petitioner, death of Nandisha would not have occurred. The lower appellate Court had no difficulty in agreeing with the trial Court and recorded concurrent finding of facts. 7. Having carefully gone through the material on record, I do not see no case made out by the petitioner for this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.More so, when the evidence of the eyewitness coupled with the doctor’s evidence and the P.M. report at Ex.P3 confirms the death of Nandisha on account of the injuries sustained following the matador van hitting the deceased and death taken place at the spot. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner requires no interference. 8. As far as sentence is concerned, the trail Court has sentenced the petitioner to six months imprisonment and Rs.1,000/- fine for an offence under Section 304-A of IPC. The said sentence imposed is the minimum sentence that has been awarded in the case of conviction under Section 304-A of IPC. Though the petitioner is said to be the young person, at the same time, the deceased was also a young person. As such, the sentence also does not call for any modification at the hands of this Court. 9. Revision petition is therefore rejected.