S SALIM KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER faced trial in C.C.No.2788/2006 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court II, Bangalore. The learned Magistrate by a Judgment dated 27.1.2009 found the petitioner guilty of offences punishable under Ss.279, 337 and 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under S.279 IPC. The accused was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under S.337 IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under S.304-A IPC. Crl.A.150/2009 filed in the Sessions Court, Bangalore City, later, assigned to Fast Track Court�I, Bangalore City, did not bring substantial relief to the petitioner. The conviction of the petitioner for the offences under S.279, 337 and 304-A IPC was confirmed. The sentence to undergo of R.I for the offence under S.279 IPC was set aside. The sentence of fine imposed for the offence S.337 IPC was modified to one of payment of fine of in default, to undergo simple Rs.500/-, imprisonment for two months. Challenging the said judgments, the accused has filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that, on 10.10.2006, Nikil Kumar, the complainant/PW-7 and the victim, Arun Nayar, were proceeding in a motorcycle bearing No.DL-09-SM-6602 from Yelahanka Upanagar to Yelahanka and near Tempo Stand, the accused being the driver of Bus bearing No.KA-02-D-6066 came in high speed behind the motorcycle and dashed against it and that, Arun Nayar fell to the right side of the road and the front left wheel of the Bus ran over him, resulting in sustaining of fatal injuries and his death. Complainant also suffered minor injuries. It was alleged that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle and committed the offences.

(3.) SRI G.A.Srikante Gowda, learned advocate, contended that, there being no credible evidence to show that the bus was being driven in rash and/or negligent manner by the petitioner, the conviction being illegal is liable to be set aside. He submitted that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and illegal and hence, interference is warranted. Alternatively, he submitted that the sentence imposed is harsh.