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, I.PC, 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 Rl under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A, I.P.C. and further imposed fine of Rs. 2,000 under Section 304-A, in default to undergo one month RL

(2.) MR . Ravi Hosmani for Basavaprab-hu 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.) IN the light of the submissions made by the Counsel for the petitioner and the Government Advocate it has to be seen whether there are any circumstances to interfere with the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The evidence of P.W 1 makes it very clear that the car was coming in high speed. It is also an admitted fact P.W 10 was going along with the bullocks. But in the cross-examination of P.W. 11 other defence appears to have been made by putting the suggestion that the bullocks were scared of. But the same suggestion is not put to P.Ws. 1 and 3 and even to P.W. 11. P.W 10 flatly denies the suggestion that bullocks were scared. The another argu­ment of the Counsel is that, the road was not in good condition. If that is the case, it was not the business of the driver to go in high speed. Of course P.W. 1 does not state. Although P.W 1 states that the car was driven in a high speed that too at 80 kms. per hour, there is no proof of it. Neverthe­less it can be inferred that the driver was driving fast. On seeing the persons going with the bullock and on seeing the persons on the road, if according to the Counsel the road was narrow, it was the duty of the driver to driven it carefully and slowly. This is also not done. The way the accident has taken place itself is self explanatory that the petitioner's driving was not only rash and negligent but also drove the vehicle endangering human life. It has hit P.W. 1 and hit another person by name Basavaraj and another lady by name Tungamma who succumbed to these injuries. One bullock is injured and P.W 11 is injured.