Criminal Revision Petition No. 2522/2011. Case: Mohammed Mustafa Vs The State of Karnataka. High Court of Karnataka (India)
|Criminal Revision Petition No. 2522/2011
|For Appellant: Shivanand V. Pattanshetti, Advocate and For Respondents: P.S. Patil, HCGP
|B.A. Patil, J.
|Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 313, 353, 354, 389, 428; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 279, 304A, 53; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 187
|March 23, 2017
|High Court of Karnataka (India)
B.A. Patil, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the accused-petitioner assailing by the judgment of conviction and sentence in criminal appeal No. 4/2009 dated 29.7.2010 passed by Fast Tract Court-II Bidar whereunder the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Humnabad in CC No. 692/2006 dated 18.12.2008 has been confirmed under sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and also under Sec. 187 of M.V. Act.
2. The gist of the allegation as per the complaint are that on 3.6.2006 accused-petitioner being the driver of the lorry baring registration No. AP-12U-6190 drove the said lorry in a rivers gear rashly and negligently and the back wheel of the said lorry was ran over the head of the deceased as such she died on the spot. The accused petitioner after committing the alleged incident without informing the police he ran away, a case has been registered, after investigation the charge sheet came to be filed. After recording the evidence of PWs 1 to 7 and for having got marked ExP-1 to 6, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused and the Assst. Public Prosecutor, the petitioner-accused came to be convicted. Being aggrieved by such order he preferred the appeal No. 4/2009, there also the same was confirmed, as such the accused-petitioner is before this Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner and the High Court Government Pleader.
4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses. He would also contend that offence under Sec. 279 of IPC is a technical offence and it merges with Sec. 304-A of IPC. The trial Court ought not to have imposed a separate sentence under Sec. 279 of IPC. He would further contend that the trial Court has not put the proper incriminating circumstances while examining the accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. He would further contend that the material witnesses have only deposed about the speed of the vehicle but, they have not stated about the rash and negligent act of the accused. He would also further contend that there are so many contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. The same has been ignored by both the courts and have come to wrong conclusion and thereby error has occurred in passing the order.
5. Per contra the learned High Court Government pleader would contend by supporting the judgment and order passed by both the...
To continue readingRequest your trial