J. Manjunatha vs State of Karnataka

V. Jagannathan

This revision petition is disposed of finally after hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

The petitioner suffered conviction at the hands of the trial court in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304B of IPC and was sentenced to pay Rs. 500/- fine in respect of an offence u/s 279 of IPC and 6 months imprisonment for an offence u/s 304-B of IPC and Rs. 100/-fine in respect of an offence u/s 134(b) r/w 167 of M.V. Act.

The prosecution case in short is that, on 39.08.1998 at about 6.10 p.m., the petitioner droves the lorry bearing registration No.MYN 5660 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the cyclist who was going ahead namely Chehrvaraju and the accident happened near the petrol bunk and following the cyclist felling down sustaining the injuries, he was taken to the hospital by the complainant PW-1 who happens to be the lecturer in National Institute of Engineering Mysore. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

The trial court after the evidence placed by the prosecution through PWs 1 to 3 and documents Exs.P1 to P3, held the charge being proved against the petitioner and conviction and sentence passed was affirmed by the lower appellate court by dismissing the petitioner''s appeal.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case, I.O. was not examined and no sketch map was produced to know what was the width of the road and therefore, the conviction could not be sustained for the said reason.

On the other hand, submission of learned HCGP is that, the courts below have concurrently held on facts that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner and more over, the cyclist being found going ahead to the lorry and after the accident, the cyclist being found caught in the front left wheel of the lorry and the very cause of the accident itself confirms about the rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner.

Having thus considered the submissions made by both sides and after going through the judgments of the courts below and the manner in which the accident occurred, width of the road therefore does not give much importance in view of the evidence of PW-1 that the lorry hit the cyclist from behind and cyclist was found caught under the front wheel of the lorry and since PW- 1 is an eyewitness and also took the injured to the hospital, the evidence let in by the prosecution coupled with the IMV report produced at Ex.P3 therefore gives raise to take a view that the accident happened only on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner. Death of the cyclist is also not in dispute.

For the foregoing reasons, conviction of the petitioner therefore requires no interference, so also the sentence passed by the court below. Revision Petition is rejected accordingly.