MANJUNATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused has preferred this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dtd. 19/10/2019 passed in CC No.1144 of 2013 by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC at Kadur (for short "the trial Court"), which came to be partly allowed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru (for short "the appellate Court"), in Criminal Appeal No.233 of 2019 dtd. 16/12/2020, confirming the judgment of conviction for offence under Ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, by setting aside the sentence passed under Sec. 279 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Facts leading to this revision petition are that it is alleged by the prosecution that on 9/8/2010 at 6:10 pm near Kothari Saw Mill on National Highway-206, the son of CW6-Nehal was proceeding on unregistered Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle along with his friend, CW10-Anuroop Dev. At that time, one Nano car bearing registration number KA-41/P-8113 driven by the accused in rash and negligent manner endangering human life, dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, CW10 sustained simple and grave injuries and Nehal, the rider of motorcycle also received severe injuries on his head, left hand, and the injured were immediately shifted to hospital, wherein while taking treatment, the said Nehal succumbed to the injuries. Thus, accused committed offence punishable under Ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. After filing charge-sheet, case was registered against the accused in CC No.1144 of 2013. In response to summons, accused appeared before the trial Court and has enlarged on bail. Substance of plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to substantiate the case, prosecution examined eight witnesses as per PWs1 to 8 and got marked sixteen documents as Exhibits P1 to P16. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence appearing against him, but has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code and passed the sentence. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, accused preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.233 of 2019 before the appellate Court. The same came to be partly allowed. The sentence against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 279 of IPC was set aside and conviction for offence under Ss. 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code was confirmed. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgments, accused has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) Sri Umesh P.B., learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the accident took place on 9/8/2013 at about 6:45 pm but the complaint was lodged on 10/8/2015 at 8.00 pm. There is a delay in filing the complaint and same is not explained by the prosecution. PWs1, 4, 7 and 8 have not supported the case of the prosecution. The sketch drawn by the police has not been marked. Police have not seized the vehicle on spot but conducted seizure mahazar before the police station on the next day. During the course of cross-examination, PWs2 and 3 have admitted that there are road-humps at both sides of the place of accident. Therefore, it is not possible to drive the vehicle in a high speed. The speed of the Nano car is limited. Investigating officer has not collected the driving license of the Rider of motorcycle. Admittedly, motorcycle was a new vehicle and was not registered. The accident took place due to sole negligence on part of the rider of motorcycle who was not having driving license. The Investigating officer has not whispered anything as to the driving license of the rider of motorcycle and absolutely there is no evidence as to the rash and negligent act of the accused. Both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. On all these grounds, the learned Counsel sought to allow the revision petition.