DURGAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence under Sec. 279, 337, 338 and 427 of IPC on a trial held by the Magistrate, Chitradurga and confirmed in Crl. A. No. 46/2006 by the Sessions Court.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under:-It is alleged that on 14. 05. 2005 at about 4. 30 p. m. while the petitioner was driving the bus bearing No. KA-17/f-427 from Chitradurga to Chikkappanahalli, near Madanayakanahalli, the petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, the bus hit the house of PW-1 situate on the right side of the road and having caused injuries to PWs 1 and 3, the owner of the house and a passenger in the bus. After the accident, PW-1 approached PW-7, the PSI, Chitradurga Police Station and submitted the complaint Ex. P. 1, which came to be registered in Cr No. 85/2005 for the offence punishable under Sec. 279, 427, 337 and 338 of IPC and he sent the complaint and the FIR to the Magistrate and thereafter went to the spot and held mahazar Ex. P2 in presence of P. W-4 and another. The vehicle was subjected to inspection by PW-6, the Motor Vehicles Inspector who issued the report Ex. P5. The statement of the witnesses were recorded and after securing the relevant documents i. e. , Motor Vehicle Report, Injury Certificate, etc. The charge sheet came to be filed before the Magistrate. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and in their evidence got marked the documents Exs. P1 to P6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. He contended that a boy abruptly came across the road while driving the bus and in an attempt to avoid the accident, the bus went and hit the house. On appreciation of the material on record, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the above said offences and aggrieved by the conviction, he preferred an Appeal to the Sessions Court in Crl. A. No. 46/2006, which came to be dismissed on merits vide judgment and order dated 26. 10. 2006. Aggrieved by the conviction and confirmation, the petitioner has approached this Court in Revision.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the Government Pleader.