The quality of evidence, the mandatory duty of the accused to provide an explanation, and the appropriateness of separate sentencing for different offences under IPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. Accused in CC No.436/2008 on the file of the JMFC, Lingasugur, has challenged the judgment dtd. 30/3/2012 whereby he was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 279 and 304A IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.800.00 with default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month; and simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.3,000.00 with default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months for the offence 279 and 304A IPC respectively, which was confirmed by the judgment dtd. 17/9/2012 of the learned Sessions Judge in CRL.A. No.33/2012.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the Revision Petition are as under: Upon a complaint lodged by Veerabhadraiah, s/o. Veeraiah contending that on 17/6/2008 at about 6.20 a.m., near graveyard of Hatti lingasugur Road, Rudrappa @ Palaiah was proceeding on bicycle towards Medinapur from Hutti camp carrying water pots by bicycle, at that time, a cruiser vehicle bearing No.KA-36/B-8979 came from Lingsugur side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Rudrappa resulting in his death on the spot. Police registered a case against the accused and after conducting the detailed investigation filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Ss. 279 and 304A IPC.

3. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the said offences and secured the presence of the accused and charge was framed. Since accused denied the charges, trial was held.

4. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and relied on documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exs. P1 to P8 and a material object MO.1 - bicycle. The accused statement as contemplated under Sec. 313 of Cr.PC. was recorded after conclusion of the evidence wherein the accused denied all the incriminatory circumstances and did not lead any defence evidence or filed his version in writing.

5. Thereafter, learned Magistrate heard both sides and convicted the accused and sentenced him as referred supra. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed, accused preferred an appeal in CRL.A. No.33/2012. Learned Sessions Judge, after securing the records and hearing the arguments, dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of the learned Magistrate.

6. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner Sri R.V. Nadagouda, vehemently contended that the order of the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the first appellate court are suffering from serious discrepancies inasmuch as the evidence placed by the prosecution was hardly sufficient to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 279 and 304A of IPC. He also contended that the Trial Court have not properly appreciated the case of the prosecution besides being not following the principles of natural justice and prayed for allowing the petition.

7. Further, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that both the courts have ignored the salient principles of law enunciated in catena of judgments of various High Courts while appreciating the case of the prosecution and thus, the orders impugned needs to be set aside. He also argued that the Trial Court has lost sight of the doctrine of merger while passing separate sentence to the accused for the offence punishable under Ss. 279 and 304A IPC and thus sought for allowing the Revision Petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Thangasamy Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in (2019) 16 SCC 235 and prayed for allowing the Revision Petition.

9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supported the impugned judgments and argued that both the courts have rightly appreciated the case of the prosecution and when once the finding of fact was recorded, this court in the revisional jurisdiction cannot upset the findings recorded by both the courts and thus sought for dismissal of the Revision Petition.

10. In view of the rival con