ON

06.01.2023

AND

COMING

ON

PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

The accused in C.C.No.711/2003 on the file of the III

Metropolitan

Magistrate

Traffic

Court,

Bengaluru

(henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) has filed

this revision petition challenging the judgment dated

23.12.2009 passed therein by which, he was convicted for

the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of

IPC and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment

for one month and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence

punishable under Section 279 of IPC and to undergo

simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A

of IPC. He has also challenged the judgment dated

07.06.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track

Court - XVII, Bengaluru city (henceforth referred to as

'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A.No.59/2010 by which,

3

the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court was

upheld.

2.

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as

they were arraigned before the Trial Court. The petitioner

herein was the accused.

3.

The case of the prosecution was that CW.1

submitted a written information before CW.20 stating that

he was on duty as a pillion of P.S.I. Adappa on 26.01.2003

between 8.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. At 11.30 a.m., a Hero

Puch bike bearing registration No.KA-04-ED-9685 was

ridden by two from Tumakuru towards Bengaluru, stopped

at the red signal at Jalahalli cross. Around the same time,

a Gas Tanker bearing registration No.AP-13-W-4797 was

driven from Nelamangala towards Bengaluru in a rash and

negligent manner which dashed against the Hero Puch

bike, that was stopped at the signal. As a result, the rider

and the pillion rider of the Hero Puch bike fell down and

were shifted to Ravi Kirloskar Memorial hospital, but the

doctors declared them brought dead.

4

4.

Based on this written information, CW.20

registered Crime No.54/2003 for the offences punishable

under Sections 279, 304A of IPC. CW.22 took over the

investigation and conducted a spot inspection and drew up

a mahazar. He drew up a sketch of the spot of the

accident, conducted an inquest and sent the body for post-

mortem. After post-mortem, he handed over the body to

the relatives of the deceased. Later, he recorded the

statements of witnesses, issued notice to the registered

owner of the offending vehicle to furnish details of the

person driving the said vehicle at the time of the accident

and thereafter, arrested the accused on 29.01.2003. He

received the reports of the post-mortem as well as the

report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector and submitted a

charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections

279, 304A of IPC.

5.

The Trial Court took cognizance of the said

offences and recorded the plea of the accused, who

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The

5

prosecution examined the first informant (CW.1) as PW.1,

the inquest witnesses as PW.2 and PW.10, the mother of

the deceased - Umashankar as PW.3, the investigating

officer as PW.4, the A.S.I., who registered Crime

No.54/2003 as PW.5, the medical officer at Ravi Kirloskar

Memorial Hospital as PW.6, the Assistant Professor at M.S.

Ramaiah Hospital, who conducted the post-mortem as

PW.7, the wife of the deceased - Venkatesh as PW.8, the

brother of the deceased - Venkatesh, who received the

body as PW.9 and the Motor Vehicle Inspector as PW.11.

The prosecution marked Exs.P1 to P10.

6.

Based on the oral and documentary evidence,

the Trial Court held that PW.1 had deposed about the

negligence on the part of the accused in causing the

accident and the consequent death of the rider and pillion

rider on the Hero Puch bike. It therefore, held that the

prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond

doubt and consequently, convicted him for the offences

6

punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC and sentenced

him accordingly.

7.

The accused challenged the said judgment of

conviction before the