KALLAYANI Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come up before this Court challenging the order passed by the JMFC, Chittapur in C.C. No. 211/2007 in convicting and sentencing him under Section 160(2) Railways Act, 1989, in sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 46/2011 by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, vide order dated 11.11.2013.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Addl. SPP for the respondent. Perused the records.

(3.) IN order to prove the guilt of the accused prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 8 and got marked P.1 to P.9. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing arguments as the accused did not choose to lead any evidence, the trial Court rendered the judgment of the conviction and sentence, the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 160(2) of Railways Act 1989. The trial Court after considering the evidence of P.W. 4 particularly the eyewitness to the incident, who has categorically stated that on the date and time of the incident he was on duty near gate 91(B) he observed that from the Rawoor village side a jeep bearing No. KA -32/M -1071 driven by the petitioner herein and dashed against the boomer pole to the railway gate due to which railway gate has broken. The witness has categorically stated that he raised hue and cry to stop the said vehicle but in spite of that without listening to him the petitioner rashly driving the vehicle dashed against the boomer pole and caused damage to the railway property. The trial Court has believed the said version. The other witnesses are the circumstantial witnesses where it is not necessary to deal in detail with regard to such evidence. Even at the time of argument before the Court the learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that it is not an intentional act of the petitioner and it is only due to some rash or negligent driving he might have committed such an offence. Therefore, he has not made any injury to any person and during the course of the incident some damage might have occurred to the railway property. Therefore, even though the trial Court has held that the accused is guilty, the sentence passed by the trial Court is totally disproportionate to the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. Of course, Section 160(2) of Railways Act, does not speak about any intention as such to be present as an ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 160(2) of the Railways Act. The said section reads as under: