Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VENKATESH NAIK T.
H.D. Roopesh Kumar S/o Devegowda – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Though the matter is listed for 'Admission', with the consent of the learned counsel for both parties, the matter is taken up for 'Hearing'.
2. Heard Sri Hemantha B., learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The petitioner/accused has filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 13-3-2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arakalagud, in Criminal Case No.850 of 2013 and confirmed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Criminal Appeal No.134 of 2020 dated 2-12-2022, wherein both the Courts have passed concurrent findings against the petitioner and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Section 134 (a) & (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The petitioner is
Revisional jurisdiction must not re-evaluate factual evidence but correct manifest legal errors, ensuring justice is served without infringing on trial court determinations.
The scope of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is limited to addressing manifest errors or legal bar against proceedings, emphasizing that revisional courts cannot review evidence as appellate court....
Concurrent findings of guilty must be upheld unless glaring defects are present or a miscarriage of justice occurs; professional drivers may not qualify for probation under Section 304-A IPC.
A conviction under criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which was lacking in this case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
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 causing death by negligence, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in evidence justified acquittal in a criminal case.
Motor Accident - Rash and Negligence driving - Death - Conviction affirmed - Petitioner witnesses are independent eye witnesses to occurrence who are having their shops near place of occurrence and t....
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
