Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent-State.

2.

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution

before the Trial Court is that on 19.04.2007 at about 3.45 p.m.

on Santhebachanahalli 3 Hirisavi Road in front of the house of

the complainant at Doddakyathanahalli Village, when the

deceased Ramu was crossing the road to go to his house, the

accused being the driver of TATA ACE Goods Auto bearing

No.54/78 came in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger

the human life from the side of Santhebachanalli and dashed to

seven year old Ramu and as a result, the wheel of the auto ran

over the abdomen of the said boy and immediately he was

shifted to Chennarayapatna Hospital. After first aid treatment,

when he was being shifted to K.R. Pet General Hospital for

treatment, on the way to the hospital, he succumbed to the

injures at 5.00 p.m. Hence, based on the complaint, the case

has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections

279 and 304A of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) of the Motor

Vehicles Act (8MV Act9 for short).

3

3.

The prosecution in order to prove the charges

leveled against the petitioner, examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got

marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 11(a). The petitioner has

not led any evidence before the Trial Court. The Trial Court after

considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on

record, convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under

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

MV Act and imposed substantive sentence of six months for

Section 279 of IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/- and substantive

sentence of one year for offence punishable under Section 304A

of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.500/-. In respect of offence

punishable under Sections 134(a) and (b) of MV Act, imposed

fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/-. Being aggrieved by the

judgment of conviction, an appeal is filed before the Appellate

Court. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and

documentary

evidence

placed

on

record,

confirmed

the

conviction and sentence and hence the present revision petition

is filed before this Court.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner without

arguing the matter on merits would vehemently contend that the

petitioner has suffered the stroke. In support of his contention,

4

he placed the document before the Court, wherein out patient

record discloses that he was clinically assessed on 10.08.2021

and noticed left side weakness from last six months and also the

examination finding is that stroke on left side and he is under

treatment. He needs rest and cannot walk and difficult to his

routine work, bed ridden, needs exemption from attending the

Court. The learned counsel also produced the OPD sheet

regarding physical examination and cardiovascular examination

and also produced the certificate issued by Sparsh Hospital,

Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences MRI of Whole

Spine Screening, wherein the report is with regard to subtle

retrolisthesis of L4 over L5 with partial wedging of L4 3

degenerative changes and the impression is that features of

cervical and lumbar spondylosis as described.

5.

The learned counsel has also produced the document

along with memo dated 25.03.2022 and the same is out patient

record dated 22.03.2022, wherein also it is mentioned that there

is weakness on the left hand and also left foot. MRI report dated

14.02.2022 corroborates grade I anterolisthesis of L3 over L4

vertebral body and grade I retrolisthesis of L4 over L5 vertebral

body.

5

6.

This Court had directed the learned counsel for the

petitioner to keep the petitioner present before the Court.

Today, the petitioner is produced before the Court with wheel

chair. Having taken note of the MRI scan dated 14.02.2022 as

well as the earlier reports, the petitioner is in constant

treatment. The Apex Court in its judgment dated 03.02.2020

passed in Crl.A.214/2020 in the case of ANNAPOORNA v.