SANNAMADAIAH ALIAS MAHADEVA Vs. STATE OF KARNATKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER faced trial in CC No.1334/2005 on the file of the JMFC II Court, Mysore and was convicted by a judgment dated 9.11.2007 for the offences punishable under Ss.279, 337, 308, 304A IPC r/w S.134 (a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act ("the Act" for short) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment. Crl.A.No.372/2007 filed by him in the District and Sessions Court at Mysore, was allowed in part by judgment dated 6.11.2009 modifying the order of sentence passed under Ss.279 and 304A IPC and confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed for the other offences, except for the offences punishable under S.304A IPC and S.187 of the Act. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and pay fine of Rs.250/- and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under S.279 IPC and 6 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default further to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under S.304A IPC. The order of sentence for the offences punishable under Ss.337 and 338 IPC and 187 r/w 134 (a) and (b) of the Act were confirmed. Accused has filed this revision petition.

(2.) SRI K.A.Chandra Shekara, learned counsel contended that the prosecution has not placed cogent material on record to show that the accident occurred due to rash or negligent act on the part of petitioner herein. He submitted that, though ingredients of S.304A IPC was not made out, petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for the said offence. He submitted that without proper appreciation of the evidence of PW.1, order of conviction has been passed which is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel contended that PWs.7 to 14 deposed before the Court alleging that the driving of the Maxi Cab by the petitioner herein was in rash and negligent manner, only to claim compensation and their evidence ought not to have been accepted. He further submitted that the case of the prosecution being that the Maxi Cab vehicle which was driven by petitioner herein also over turned, shows that the life of petitioner himself is involved and it cannot be said that petitioner was driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner. Learned counsel concluded by submitting that impugned Judgments suffer from serious infirmities and prosecution having not established its case, petitioner is entitled to an order of acquittal.

(3.) PW.17 Shafiullakhan, is the owner of Maxi Cab bearing registration No. KA-10-1881. He has stated that on 12.1.2005, petitioner was the driver and the vehicle had carried passengers from H.D.Kote to Mysore and the accident having taken place at Jedikatte Temple. PW.15 is a cleaner of the vehicle. He has deposed that petitioner was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the accident.