KUMARA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are concurrent findings of courts below. The courts below have held that petitioner is guilty of offences punishable under sections 279 and 304A IPC. Therefore, petitioner is before this court. I have heard Sri T. Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned HCGP for State.

(2.) THIS court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 401 Cr.P.C. does not sit as a court of second appeal. This court can interfere with the impugned judgment if the courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel for petitioner referring to the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 would submit that they have given different versions and their versions are not consistent. Therefore, trial court should have extended the benefit of doubt to petitioner.