The court upheld the importance of valid driving licenses and vehicle insurance under the MV Act and considered the age and occupation of the accused in modifying the sentence.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

G Basavaraja, J. - The revision petitioner has filed this revision petition under section 397(1) of Cr.P.C to set aside the order dated 11.03.2015 passed by the Fast Track Court, Tumkur in Crl.A.No.80/2012 and judgment dated 15.03.2012 passed by II Additional Civil Judge at Tumkur in CC No.463/2010.

2. Parties are referred to as per their ranks before the trial court.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution is that:

On 14.01.2010, near the house of Imam Sab, near Chikkathotlukere Ataviswamy Mutt road, the accused being the driver of tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-06-A-5329-5330 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against Gowramma, who was proceeding on the left side of the road, as a result, a wheel of tractor ran over her and caused death of Gowramma. Further it is alleged that the accused was not having any valid license at the relevant point of time and the vehicle was also not insured. Thus, accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 181 and 196 of IMV Act and Section 279 and 304A IPC.

4. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance was taken against the accused for the alleged commission of offences and case was registered in CC No.463/2010. In pursuance of summons, accused appeared before the trial court and enlarged on bail. Substance of plea was recorded by the Magistrate and accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the case of the prosecution in all 6 witnesses are examined as P.Ws.1 to 6 and 11 documents are marked as Exs.P.1 to P.11. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence appearing against him. But he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. But he has stated that false case is foisted against him. On hearing arguments, the trial court has convicted the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of MV Act. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment passed by the II Additional Civil Judge at Tumkur, the accused has preferred an appeal before the Fast Track Court, Tumkur in Crl.A.No.80/2012 and the same came to be dismissed on 11.03.2015. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgments passed by courts below, petitioner has filed this revision petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted his argument that the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below are illegal, erroneous and contrary to criminal jurisprudence. Both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in a proper and perspective manner. The Courts below have mechanically held the petitioner as guilty of alleged offences by placing reliance of certain Judgments of foreign Courts, which are not applicable to the case on hand. On all these grounds, sought for allow revision petition.

7. Alternatively, learned counsel for the accused has submitted that if this Court has confirmed the Judgments passed by the trial court and as well as appellate Court. This Court may modify the sentence by imposing fine of Rs.20,000/. Further he has submitted that, at the time of commission of offence, the age of the accused was 19 years and he is the only earning member in the family. Considering the nature of gravity of offence, he sought for modification of sentence passed by the trial court.

8. As against this, learned HCGP Sri. Nageshwarappa, submitted his argument that the impugned Judgments passed by the trial Court, which is confirmed by appellate Court are in accordance with law. Both the courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in a proper and perspective manner, that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgments. On these grounds, sought for dismissal of revision petition.

9. To prove the case of prosecution, in all 6 witnesses are examined as PWs.1 to 6 and got marked 11 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.11. It is alleged by