ADDAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 16/11/2007 at about 1.00 p.m. near Karaganahally bus stop on Sabbanahally - Malali Road, this petitioner being the driver of the mini lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the children of C.W.5 by name Pallavi, Pavithra and also against C.W.8 Suresh and C.W.9 Manjula. As a result, they have sustained simple injuries and one child Pallavi succumbed to injuries. Based on the complaint lodged by P.W.1, case has been registered, matter has been investigated and filed the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. The prosecution in order to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.16 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 8(a). On the other hand, the petitioner did not lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the petitioner for all the offences and substantive sentence is for one year for the offence punishable under Sec. 304A and to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00. For the offence under Ss. 279 and 338 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00 and Rs.500.00 respectively. For the offence punishable under Sec. 337 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, an appeal was filed in Crl.A. No. 106/2011 and the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the material on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the confirmation order passed in the appeal by the Appellate Court, the present revision petition is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that P.W.8 has categorically admitted in the cross-examination that the accident road is a upgradient road. The learned counsel submits that the witnesses are all relatives and they are interested witnesses and the evidence of these witnesses has not been considered by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in a right perspective. The interested witnesses evidence has been relied upon by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The learned counsel submits that the injured and also the victim were standing on the dambar road and they were not sitting in the bus stand and admittedly the bus was about to come at around 1.00 p.m. and accident occurred prior to that. These are the aspects which have not been considered by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.