MOHAMMAD MANAR Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent.

(2.) PETITIONER has faced a trial for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304 -A of IPC in a case bearing C.C. No. 962/1997 before the Court of III Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) & JMFC at Kalaburagi. He is convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/ - for the offence punishable under Section 304 -A of IPC. The said judgment of the conviction and sentence passed on 25.03.2008 was confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi in Criminal Appeal No. 30/2008 on 09.09.2009. It is these concurrent findings which are called in question before this Court by filing revision petition in terms of Section 397 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) PW . 1/Complainant and PW. 4/Dinesh have supported the case of the prosecution. PW. 4 is stated to be an eyewitness to the incident in question. The learned Judge has relied upon the evidence of complainant/injured Sri Mohd. Nayeemuddin and PW. 4/Dinesh. The learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that there is consistency in the evidence of these two material witnesses and the defence taken up by the accused is not probabilized in any manner. It is argued that, though the accused had taken up a specific plea of not being the driver of the vehicle, the same is not probabilized in any manner and therefore his defence has only remained as defence without being substantiated in any manner.