M. SRIDHARA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel Sri. P. Nataraju for the petitioner and the learned HCGP Shri Thejesh for the State.

(2.) This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment passed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.117/2009 dated 15.07.2010 dismissing the appeal and thus confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.2402/2007 dated 18.07.2009. The Trial Court had convicted accused - petitioner herein for offence under Sections 279 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-; had convicted the accused - petitioner herein for offence under Section 337 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; had convicted the accused for offence under Section 304A IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; and convicted him for offence under Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of the IMV Act to pay a fine of Rs.100/- along with default clauses. Thus, the petitioner has been convicted for offences under Sections 279, 337 304A of IPC and under Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of the IMV Act. The Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the accused and thus confirmed the order of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court, by its order dated 15.07.2010 in Crl.A.No.117/2009. It is against the said judgment that the petitioner has preferred this petition.

(3.) The factual matrix of the petition as per the case put forth by the prosecution is as follows: On the basis of the complaint lodged by one C. Umesh on 12.07.2006, the Devaraja Traffic Police had registered a case against the accused - petitioner herein for offence under Sections 279, 337, 304A IPC and under Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of the IMV Act. It was alleged in the complaint that on 12.07.2006 at about 12.15 p.m. when the complainant C. Umesh along with his wife as pillion were proceeding on his TVS Moped bearing Regn.No.KA-09-K-2274 towards Race Course and when they neared the entrance gate of Karanjikere, a lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-01-B-5756 had come from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the moped. Due to the impact, the complainant fell on the left side of the road and his wife who was riding pillion had fallen to the right side of the road as a result of which the lorry had run over her and she had died on the spot. The complainant as well had sustained bleeding injuries. After causing the accident, the driver of the lorry had stopped the lorry at a distance and walked away from the spot. But however the complainant had seen the driver as well as the registration number of the lorry that caused the accident. Hence, he lodged a complaint to the above effect requesting the police to initiate legal action against the driver of the offending lorry. The police then registered a case against the driver - accused and after conducting investigation, filed a charge sheet against him for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC and under Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of the IMV Act. The Magistrate then took cognizance and after securing the presence of the accused, framed charges for alleged offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in all examined twelve witnesses as PWs 1 to 12 and got marked five documents as Exhibits P1 to P9. Thereafter, the incriminating statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However he did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 Cr.P.C., The learned Magistrate, after hearing the arguments of both sides, by its judgment dated 18.07.2009 convicted the accused for the alleged offences and sentenced him as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court, the accused challenged the said judgment by way of Crl.A.No.117/2009. The Appellate Court on a re-appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence rendered by the Trial Court. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition urging various grounds.