CHANDRASHEKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the owner of Autoricshaw bearing No.KA-19-A-3057. The said vehicle was involved in an accident at 8.30 p.m. on 29.4.2004 at Guddeyangady of Bekavi village. On account of the accident, a girl by name Kum. Deeksha sustained fatal injuries and died when she was being taken to hospital. Her parents/CWs.1 and 2, also sustained injuries. On a complaint being filed, respondent/police registered a case and conducted investigation. Petitioner was found to be the driver of Autorickshaw in question at the relevant point of time. He was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Ss.279, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short). Petitioner appeared and pleaded not guilty. To establish the prosecution case, PWs.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. Petitioner was examined under S.313 Cr.P.C. and it is a case of denial. No defence evidence was adduced. Upon consideration of rival contentions and the record of the case, learned Magistrate found petitioner/accused guilty. Acting under S.255(2) Cr.P.C, accused/petitioner was convicted for the offences Ss.279, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months for the offence under S.338 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 months for the offence under S.304-A IPC. An appeal filed in Crl.A.No.306/2008 in the Sessions Court at Mangalore having been found to be devoid of merit, was dismissed by a judgment dated 7.11.2009. Feeling aggrieved, accused/petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

(2.) SRI K.Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the driver of the Autorickshaw at the relevant point of time and that, petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel submitted that, there being no cogent evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed on the petitioner is unwarranted. Alternatively, learned counsel contended that the sentence imposed for the offence under S.304-A IPC is harsh.

(3.) KEEPING in view the rival contentions, the point for consideration is, whether the Courts below are justified in convicting the petitioner for offences under Ss.279, 338 and 304-A of IPC and whether the sentence imposed on him is harsh?