RAMESH KUPPA DEVADIGA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.1228/2008 dated 20.04.2010 convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC and so also the judgment passed in Crl.Apl.No.65/2010 dated 01.08.2011 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the lower Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the allegation made in the complaint and the charge sheet against this revision petitioner that on 31.10.2008 at 5.30 p.m. this revision petitioner has caused the accident on National Highway No.17 towards Bhatkal on the motorcycle and as a result the rider and the pillion rider who were proceeding in the motorcycle have sustained injuries and the rider succumbed to the injuries and the pillion rider has taken the treatment for the injuries sustained by him and this accident is on account of the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus i.e. the revision petitioner and based on the complaint of one Mohan Moger, the case has been registered and this revision petitioner is tried for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. The Court below after considering both the oral and documentary evidence, convicted this revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The revision petitioner is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC. The revision petitioner is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner has preferred an appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar in Crl.Apl.No.65/2010 and the First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence and also the confirmation made by the District and Sessions Judge, this revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court.

(3.) The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the very judgment of both the Courts suffers from illegality, irregularities and incorrectness and failed to consider the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, the spot panchas who have clearly admitted that the spot of accident is only three feet from the left side of edge of the road which reveals that this revision petitioner was on the extreme left side of the road moving towards Honnavar on the correct side and so also the evidence of PSI, who has been examined as PW.8 categorically admitted in his evidence that the spot of accident is about three feet from the eastern edge of the road and hence the bus was driven by this revision petitioner is on the correct side of the road and it is the deceased who has come on the right side and dashed to the front right side of the bus resulting in an accident. The other contention is that the investigation in the matter is tainted and no independent eyewitnesses though available have not been cited as witnesses nor examined and the place of accident is 8 k.m. away from the village of the deceased and the witnesses who have been examined as eyewitnesses are tutored and the Courts elow did not appreciate the evidence available on record which are material contradictions to each other and in spite of it the Court below in the absence of corroboration, convicted this revision petitioner and the same has been erroneously affirmed by the First Appellate Court and hence the judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside.