SALEEM Vs. DEVARAJA TRAFFIC ZONE MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner was accused No.1 in C.C.No.1090/2008, in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-III, Mysore, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court"), who, by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dtd. 25/5/2010 of the Trial Court, was convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 279 , 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the IPC ") and Sec. 3(1) read with Sec. 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the M.V.Act") and was sentenced accordingly.

(2.) The summary of the case of the prosecution is that, on the date 12/5/2008 at about 2:00 p.m. on T. Narasipura Road, near Chikkalli village within the limits of the complainant Police Station, while one Sri.Mahesh, aged about 25 years was proceeding on his Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-09/EK-2220 from T. Narasipura towards Mysore, the accused, by driving his motor vehicle - Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-12/5252 from the opposite direction, in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came towards the right side of the road and dashed to the motor cycle of the said Mahesh, causing the road traffic accident, due to which, the said Mahesh sustained injuries and was shifted to J.S.S. Hospital for treatment wherein he succumbed to the injuries on the date 13/5/2008 at about 12:00 in the night. The accused No.2, being the owner of the Lorry, knowing fully well that the accused No.1 was not possessing a valid Driving Licence had allowed him to drive the said vehicle. Accordingly, a charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Ss. 279 , 304-A of IPC and Sec. 3(1) read with Sec. 181 of the M.V. Act against accused No.1 (petitioner herein) and for the offence punishable under Sec. 5(1) read with Sec. 180 of the M.V.Act against accused No.2.

(3.) The accused persons appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter through their counsel. The accused pleaded not guilty. As such, in order to prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all six (6) witnesses from PW-1 to PW-6 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-10(a). However, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked on behalf of the accused.