Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAJESH RAI K.
Shashi Kumar Poojary @ Shashikumar, S/o. Shankar Poojary – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Represented By State Public Prosecutor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented by parties (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis and reasoning (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. considerations for sentence modification (Para 13) |
| 5. final decision and order (Para 15) |
ORDER :
RAJESH RAI K., J.
This revision petition is directed against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.189/2019 dated 10.06.2020 by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’ for short), whereby the First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the appellant/State and set-aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court of JMFC (II Court), at Mangaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’ for short) in C.C.No.2752/2016 dated 27.03.2019. Further, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the revision petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A(1)(i), 323 and 504 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 354-A(1)(i) of IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offence punishable under Section
The court upheld the conviction based on adequate corroborative evidence and reasoning while modifying the sentence from imprisonment to a monetary penalty, emphasizing fair trial principles.
The court affirmed the conviction for negligent driving, emphasizing that revisional jurisdiction should not disturb concurrent findings unless there is a manifest injustice.
The court confirmed the conviction for negligence under Section 304-A IPC but reduced the sentence from one year rigorous imprisonment to three months simple imprisonment due to the Revisionist's age....
Motor Accident - Causing death by negligence - Conviction confirmed - Power of a revisional court - It is well settled that a revisional court is not an appellate court and it cannot substitute its c....
The court upheld the conviction for reckless driving resulting in death, affirming that evidence from police officials can be credible without independent corroboration.
Revisional jurisdiction must not re-evaluate factual evidence but correct manifest legal errors, ensuring justice is served without infringing on trial court determinations.
The prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence proving the accused's rashness or negligence, leading to the overturning of convictions for death by negligence under sections of the IPC and Mot....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on the evidence presented by prosecution witnesses to uphold the conviction of the petitioner for rash and negligent driving u....
The court upheld the conviction for causing death by negligence, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
