MALLESHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Chitradurga dated 25-8-1997 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 16/94 affirming the conviction under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC, passed by the learned Magistrate. While affirming the conviction under these sections, the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the conviction under Section 3 (1) read with 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Sessions Judge has sentenced three months RI under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. , and further imposed fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 304-A, in default to undergo one month RI.

(2.) MR. Ravi Hosmani for Basavaprabhu Patil strenuously submitted that, absolutely there is no evidence to convict the petitioner as there is no proper identification of the accused and the version of the eye-witnesses cannot be believed and further submitted that non-examination of the Motor Vehicle Inspector is fatal to the prosecution. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) THE brief facts are that, on 23-4-1989 at about 5 pm in Bamboo Bazar , RMC Road, Davangere, the petitioner-accused (hereinafter shall be referred to as an 'accused ' only) was the driver of the car bearing No. CTU 2525 and drove the car rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt to anybody and so driving the car in this fashion dashed against the bullock and caused injury to the bullock and also to the two persons who were going with the bulllocks and thereafter the said car dashed against Tungamma and Basavaraj who were taking water from the tap by the side of the road. The said Tungamma and Basavaraj sustained grievous injuries and subsequently Tungamma succumbed to the injuries. P. W. 1 Mahantesh filed the complaint against the accused before PW 8 as per Ex. P1. The case was registered in Crime No. 16/98 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A, IPC. , and submitted FIR to the Court. CPI-PW 12 took up further investigation. He visited the spot, conducted the inquest proceeding on the dead body of Tungamma and one Basavaj in the presence of two panchas. The two inquest mahazars are Exs. P6 and P7. He has also recorded the statements of other witnesses. The post-mortem reports are as per Exs. P8 and P9. Exs. P10 and P11 are the wound certificates in respect of the injured persons, Ex. P12 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. Ex. P14 is the sketch of the scene of the offence. Ex. P2 is the spot mahazar. After completion of the investigation he has filed the charge sheet against these persons. To this alleged incident PWs. 1, 3, 10 and 11 are the eye witnesses. PWs 5, 6, 7 have turned hostile. But this will not come in the way of prosecution.