SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner was convicted by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Devanahalli for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A), Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000 for the offence punishable under Sec. 279, Indian Penal Code; simple imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 2,000 for the offence punishable under Sec. 304(A), Indian Penal Code in C.C. No. 831/2007. The petitioner having carried the matter in appeal, the District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-1, Bengaluru Rural District acquitted the petitioner herein of the offence punishable under Sec. 279, Indian Penal Code and confirmed the conviction for the offence punishable under Sec. 304A, Indian Penal Code and reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000 in default, simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the material evidence in proper perspective. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the evidence of the eye-witness (PW-2) and the facts depicted in the sketch Ex-P4 are contradictory to each other. The learned Counsel points out that according to the prosecution, the petitioner was driving the canter lorry bearing registration No. AP-02-W-5930 from Bengaluru to Chikkaballpur and the said vehicle dashed against the TVS Moped bearing registration No. KA-040-Q-550 coming from the opposite direction; but PW-2 the only eye-witness examined by the prosecution has stated in his evidence that at the relevant time, he was driving his Maruthi van and was proceeding from Devanahalli towards Bengaluru and therefore he could not have witnessed the accident. This material discrepancy has not been taken into consideration by the lower Courts resulting in convicting the accused and therefore the petitioner has sought for interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

(3.) In view of the contention urged by the petitioner, I have carefully scrutinized the sketch Ex-P4 and the evidence of PW-2 and I do not find any such discrepancy or contradiction as sought to be made out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.