SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 12043

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D.HUDDAR

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1030/2014

BETWEEN:

Sri Kolla Bhovi

S/o Sanna Kolla Bhovi,

Aged about 39 years,

R/at Bhavikere,

Tarikere Taluk,

Chikmgalur District - 576 301.

… Petitioner

(By Sri K.Prasannashetty, Advocate)

AND:

State by Tarikere Police Station,

Tarikere, Represented by

Special Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Karnataka,

Bangalore - 560 001.

… Respondent

(By Sri V.V.Vinayaka, HCGP)

This

Criminal

Revision

Petition

is

filed

under

Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set

aside the order dated 23.09.2014 passed by the learned

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagalur, in

Sessions Case No.8/2014 and discharge the petitioner for the

offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC.

R

2

This Criminal Revision Petition having been heard and

reserved on 17.02.2023, coming on for pronouncement of

orders, this day, the Court made the following :

Revision petitioner-accused has preferred this revision

under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short

‘Cr.P.C’) challenging the order dated 23.09.2014 passed by

the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur in

Sessions Case No.8/2014, dismissing his application seeking

discharge for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part

II of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2.

Brief and relevant of facts of the case are as

under :

That on Ummer Sab S/o Khalandar Sab lodged a

compliant on 20.01.2013 before Tarikere Town Police Station

alleging, that on 20.01.2013, by loading the vegetable in his

Mahidra Maximo motor vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-18/A-8799

was moving towards Shimogga along with Gangadharappa on

Kadur-Birur road at about 7.30 p.m. When he was so moving

within the jurisdiction of Bettadahalli Village at about

3

8.30 p.m., the driver of a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-04/A-

8166 by driving his lorry in high speed and in a rash and

negligent manner came from behind and dashed against the

Mahindra Maximo vehicle from behind. Because of this

impact, the inamate of the Mahindra Maximo Gangadharappa

sustained head injury and the vehicle of the complainant was

damaged. It is alleged that, the said driver of the lorry did

not stop the lorry. Complainant followed the said lorry along

with one Jafar for about two kilometers. When he was so

following near Ajjampur Cross near Shaneshwar Temple, the

said lorry driver was driving the lorry in high speed and in a

rash and negligent manner dashed against the tractor

bearing Reg.No.KA-28-T/6380 which was coming from

opposite direction. Because of this accident, the tractor

engine was completely damaged and the driver of the tractor

sustained injuries on his person. The injured were shifted to

the hospital. With these allegations, a complaint came to be

filed which was registered in Crime No.14/2013 of Tarikere

Town Police Station and criminal law was set in motion.

4

3.

The

Investigating

Officer

conducted

the

investigation and after completion of the investigation filed

the charge-sheet against the accused persons for the

offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304 Part II of

IPC and Sections 134(a) and (b) read with Section 181 of

Motor Vehicles Act.

4.

As the offences are triable by the Sessions Court,

the jurisdictional Magistrate committed the case to the

Sessions Court for trial. The said case was made over to the I

Additional Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru. Accused was in

custody at that time.

5.

The Jurisdictional Magistrate had complied the

provisions Section 207 of Cr.P.C by supplying the copies of

the police papers to the accused.

6.

After committal of the case, accused filed an

application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C praying to discharge

him for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of

IPC by framing charge for the offences punishable under

Sections 279, 337 and 304 of IPC read with Section 134(a)

5

and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Public

Prosecutor filed objections to the said application.

7.

The learned I Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Chikmagalur vide order dated 23.09.2014, rejected

the said application and farmed the charges against the

accused

person

for

the

offences

punishable

Sections 279, 337, 304(2) of IPC and Sections 134(a) and

(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

8.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the rejection

of his application, now the accused has filed this revision

petition challenging the said order on the following grounds :

i.

In addition to narrating the facts of the case so

pleaded by the complainant, it is contended that

the

learned

Sessions

Judge

has

failed

to

appreciate the contentions of the petitioner. The

accused

was

medically

examined

by

the

Government Medical Officer and noticed the

breath smell of alcohol and slurring of speech and

based upon that the learned Judge has come to

the conclusion that the accused had consumed

alcohol which according to the accused is not

6

correct. It was an e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top