NAGENDRA S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA Vs. THE STATE BY NAYAKANAHATTY POLICE REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under section 397 of Cr.P.C. by a person who is convicted of the offences punishable under section 279 and section 304 -A of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and in default undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month for the offence punishable under section 304 -A. of IPC and is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one week for the offence punishable under section 279 of IPC and all punishments to run concurrently.

(2.) THE accused - petitioner had preferred an appeal against this Judgment and order of the trial court dated 19.2.2010 to the Additional Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court], Chitradurga in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2010. The learned Sessions Judge having formulated the following points for determination. 1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 05.06.2008 at about 9.30 p.m. near Udevu Village on Nayakanahatty Kolammanahalli public road, the accused drove the vehicle bearing No. KA 16A -7210 in a rash and negligent manner which was endangering human life and as a result Bosaiah sustained grievous injuries on his body and he died on 18.06.2008 at 10:15 p.m. when he was taking treatment at Bapuji Hospital Davanageri and thereby he has committed the offences punishable U/s 279 and 304 -A of IPC? 2. Whether the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is arbitrary, perverse, capricious and opposed to law?

(3.) WHAT order? and having found no occasion to interfere with the conviction and sentence of the trial court, dismissed the appeal in terms of the Judgment and order dated 14.9.2010 which is questioned in this revision petition. 3. Mr. Harish, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the conviction and sentence by the trial court and the affirming order of the appellate court are not tenable in law: that PW.2 was the sole witness who supported the prosecution case, but PW.2 also having admitted that due to darkness he could not see what happened at the relevant point of time and the accident took place resulting in the death of one Bosaiah who was travelling in a three wheeler goods vehicle auto along with PW.2 and an oxen which was also being carried in the three wheeler due to the rash manner of speeding of the vehicle by the driver, the vehicle toppled over at a curve and the deceased fell off from the vehicle, was thrown out of the vehicle and the vehicle fell on him resulting in his death etc.; that it was due to speeding vehicle who had not seen what happened outside and therefore the prosecution had not made good its case. 4. Mr. Harish, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the mahazar witnesses - PW.1 and PW.2 turning hostile and there being absolutely no other evidence to connect the incident to the accused, conviction is not sustainable. It is also submitted by Sri. Harish, learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the prosecution witness had identified the accused person, particularly, as PW.2 when deposed the accused had not attended the court on that day etc.