SANGAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this cr. R.p. is cited under Section 397, cr. P.c. by the petitioner who was accused in the trial court, against the Order, dated 21-8-1991 passed by the 1st additional sessions judge, dharwad, silting at hubli, in cr. A. No. 103/1989 and the judgment dated 10-8-1989 passed by the jmfc, 11 court, hubli, in c.c. No. 3142/1987.

(2.) i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government pleader for the slate and perused the records of the case.

(3.) the case of the prosecution is as follows:that on 31-5-1987, at about 10.00 a.m. the parents of the deceased amrut had sent him to market to bring mutton. He went on a bicycle. On his way be requested P.W. 8 santosh to accompany him to ihe shop. When they were going on old-hubli road towards the market, near new english school, at about 10.00 a.m., the petitioner who was driving the truck No. Mez 5232 on old-hubli road rashly and negligently dashed against the cycle of amrut and caused injuries to santosh and also catal injuries to amrut, as a result of which he died. P.w. 5 the father of amrut gave a complaint as per Ex. P-8 and his complaint was registered by the police and after investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner in the court of the j.m.f.c., 11 court, hubli, cor offences punishable under sections 279,337 and 304-a, 1pc. The trial court framed a charge against the petitioner tor all the said offences and he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution was called upon to prove the guilt of the accused. The prosecution examined p.ws. 1 to 10, got exhibited exs. P-1 to p-11 and got marked m.os. 1 to 4. The defence got exhibited Ex. D-l in the course of the prosecution evidence. The petitioner was examined under Section 313, cr. C.p. and he denied the incriminating evidence led against him by the prosecution, but he did not choose to lead any evidence on his own behalf. After hearing both sides, the learned jmfc, ii court, hubli, convicted the petitioner for the offences under sections 279, 337 and 304-a, 1pc and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo 6 months imprisonment for all these offences.