MAHAMMED ALWAR AHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner faced trial in C.C.No.324/2003 on the file of the JMFC at Holenarasipura. The learned Magistrate by a Judgment dated 1.12.2009 found the petitioner guilty of offences punishable under Ss.279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC r/w S.192 of IMV Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default, to undergo S.I. for one month for the offence under S.279 IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and pay fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under S.337 IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under S.338 IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs. 5,000.00, in default, to undergo S.I. for three months for the offence under S.304-A IPC. Accused was sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for three months and pay fine of Rs. 2,000.00 and in default, to undergo S.I for a period of one month for the offence punishable under S.192 IMV Act. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Crl.A.No.106/2009 filed in the Sessions Court, assigned to the Court of Fast Track and Additional Session Judge at Holenarasipura was dismissed on 10.3.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

(2.) Background facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:

(3.) Summons was issued to the accused. He appeared and pleaded not guilty, when the accusation was put to him and claimed to be tried. Prosecution to prove the case, examined PWs.1 to 37 through whom Exs.P1 to P43 were marked. For the defence, Exs.D1 to D10 were marked. Considering the rival contentions and after appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty and hence, passed the Judgment of conviction and the sentence noticed supra. Appeal filed did not bring any relief to the accused.