LAWS(KAR)-2021-9-289

KAISUR RAHIMAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On September 25, 2021
Kaisur Rahiman Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition is filed by the accused/revision petitioner against the concurrent findings of conviction passed by the JMFC, Ron in C.C.No.7/2006 dtd. 23/7/2007 and confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag in Crl.A.No.32/2007 dtd. 28/6/2013 for the offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial court.

(3.) The brief facts leading to the case are that, on 29/3/2005 at about 5.30 a.m. near Ron Petrol bunk, the accused drove his lorry bearing No.KA-21/U-5045 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to a 407 tempo bearing No.KA-28/8200. Due to which, the complainant and C.Ws.7 to 27 who were travelling in the said tempo sustained grievous injuries, while the driver of the tempo suffered fatal injuries and succumbed because of the injuries in the hospital. On the basis of the complaint, the investigating officer has registered the case in crime No.29/2005. He investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. After submission of the charge sheet, as there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the alleged offences. He has also secured presence of the accused and he was enlarged on bail. The accused has denied the accusation made against him. Then the prosecution has examined in all 19 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 19 and also placed reliance on 29 documents as Exs.P1 to P29 to prove the guilt of the accused. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable him to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case of the prosecution. The case of the accused is of total denial. Further, he did not choose to lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence.