OF

JUDGMENT

OF

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT.

THIS

HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

ORDER, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS

DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The revision petitioner has filed this revision petition

under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. seeking to set

aside the judgment dated 23.08.2018 passed by the

IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in Crl.A.No.184/2017 for

the offence punishable under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. and

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

08.08.2017 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC,

Nanjangud, in CC No.52/2009 for the offences punishable

under Sections 279, 304A of IPC and Section 134(a) and

- 3 -

(b) r/w Section 187 of IMV Act and acquit the Appellant for

the said offences.

2.

The parties are referred to as per their ranks

before the trial court.

3.

Heard the arguments on both sides.

4.

The case of the prosecution is that:

On 06.09.2008 at about 05.30 p.m., in Nanjangud

main road, Mysore, near Basavapura Gate, the accused

being the driver of lorry bearing No.TN-40-W-4942 drove

the same in a rash and negligent manner with a high

speed and dashed against motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-

09-R-2108, which was going in front of the said lorry

towards the left side of road. As a result, both rider and

pillion rider fell down the and said lorry ran over the head

of pillion rider Mahadevashetty and he died on the spot.

The rider - CW.1 sustained simple injuries. After the

accident, driver of the lorry fled away from the spot and

he has not provided treatment to the injured and not

- 4 -

intimated to the nearest police station as to the accident.

Thus, accused has committed the offences punishable

under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 134(a)

and (b) r/w 187 of IMV Act.

5.

After filing the charge sheet, cognizance was

taken by the trial court and in pursuance of summons

accused appeared before the trial court and enlarged on

bail. The substance of plea is recorded under Section 251

of Cr.P.C. and accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed

to be tried.

6.

To prove the case of prosecution in all 9

witnesses are examined as PWs.1 to 9 and 9 documents

are marked as Exs.P.1 to P.9. On closure of prosecution

side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is

recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence of

prosecution witnesses, but he has not chosen to lead any

defence evidence on his behalf.

- 5 -

7.

On hearing the arguments, the trial court has

convicted the accused for the commission of offences

punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and

Section 134(a) and (b) r/w Section 187 of IMV Act.

8.

Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence passed by the trial court, accused

has preferred an appeal before the IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Crl.A.No.184/2017, same came

to be dismissed on 23.08.2018. Being aggrieved by the

impugned judgments passed by both the Courts, accused

has preferred this revision petition.

9.

Sri.Shankar M. Naik, learned counsel for the

accused has submitted his arguments that impugned

judgments are contrary to the evidence on record. Hence,

same were not sustainable under law. The trial court as

well as Appellate Court considered PW.2-Vijaykumar as an

independent eye-witness to the accident, though he was

not cited as eye-witness in the charge sheet submitted by

the respondent police. According to the charge sheet,

- 6 -

PW.2 is only inquest mahazar witness and not an eye-

witness to the accident and PW.3-Nagendra, who was the

rider of motorcycle who was met with an accident is the

sole eye-witness to the accident. Though the PW.2 was

not an eye-witness to the accident, he deposed before the

trial court as if he has witnessed the accident. The

investigation officer has not recorded the statement under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. The presence of PW.2-Vijaykumar is

not corroborated from the evidence of PW.3, he has not

whispered about th