Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 865 (KAR)

P. Shekar v. State of Karnataka

2016-11-15

S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2016
ORDER : S.N. Satyanarayana, J. The accused in C.C.No. 1274/2005 on the file of I-Additional JMFC, Vijaypur, has come up in this revision petition impugning the concurrent findings of both the Courts below in convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. 2. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are as under: Case of the prosecution before the learned JMFC, Vijaypur, is that on 13.10.2005 at about 5.30 p.m. in the evening the complainant - Neelamma was proceeding towards her house along with her daughter Sridevi. When they were near Hamala Colony bus stop, lorry bearing registration No.KA-01-AA-9769 which was proceeding towards Almatti came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Sridevi causing her instant death. The complaint was registered with Traffic Police, Bijapur Gumbaj Station, in Crime No. 176/2006. The charge-sheet witnesses 12 and 13 registered the case and thereafter, conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet in the said proceeding wherein evidence was recorded. PW.2 is mother of the victim and other witnesses are eye-witnesses to the accident and as well as witnesses to the spot panchanama and seizure panchanama and also Investigating Officers who have supported the prosecution in identifying the revision petitioner herein as the accused who caused the accident at the relevant point of time. 3. In the said proceeding, defence was raised by the revision petitioner contending that he was cleaner of the said lorry and he was not driving the lorry at the relevant point of time and according to him, immediately after the accident, driver abandoned the lorry leaving the revision petitioner who is cleaner in the custody of the lorry. Though such defence is taken, he was not able to establish by examining the driver who was driving the lorry. On the contrary, the other witnesses including complainant have identified the revision petitioner as the person who was driving the lorry at the relevant point of time. With such overwhelming evidence available on record, the Court below has proceeded to convict him for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code with reference to offence alleged under Section 134 Read With Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he has been acquitted. 4. Subsequently, sentence is passed in directing him to pay fine of Rs. 4. Subsequently, sentence is passed in directing him to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code and to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code. It is further observed that if he failed to pay the fine which is imposed at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- on each count i.e., for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, he has to further undergo imprisonment for 45 days each in default of each of the sentences regarding fine. 5. The said judgment and order of sentence were subject-matter of appeal in Criminal Appeal No.23/2008 on the file of FTC-I/II, Bijapur, wherein the appellate Court on re-appreciation of the pleading, evidence available on record has come to the conclusion that the finding of the learned Magistrate in holding the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC is correct and declined to interfere with the same. As against the concurrent findings of both the courts below, this revision petition is filed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for prosecution. On going through the judgments in both the Courts below i.e., in C.C.No. 1274/2005 and also in Criminal Appeal No.23/2008, it is clearly seen that the presence of accused is rightly accepted by both the courts below in the light of the evidence of victim's mother and eye-witnesses. It is further seen that though the revision petitioner took up a defence that he is only a cleaner and it was another person who was driving the lorry, he was not able to establish the same by providing cogent evidence. In the absence of the same, and in the presence of overwhelming evidence to pin point his presence which is accepted by him at several part of the evidence has led to the criminal case being decided against the accused and in favour of the prosecution and which is confirmed by the lower appellate Court. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court find that no justifiable grounds are made out to admit this criminal revision petition, inasmuch as, this Court find no illegality or infirmity committed by both the courts below which calls for interference. 8. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court find that no justifiable grounds are made out to admit this criminal revision petition, inasmuch as, this Court find no illegality or infirmity committed by both the courts below which calls for interference. 8. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.