1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200026/2014

BETWEEN

DEVENDRAPPA S/O HANUMANTH KABER

AGE : 40 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER

R/O DEVAR GONAL, TQ. SURPUR,

DIST. YADGIR.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAVI K. ANOOR, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. AVINASH A UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE

THROUGH JALAHALLI POLICE STATION,

DIST. RAICHUR.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W SEC. 401 OF

CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED

IN C.C. No.324/2010 BY THE JMFC COURT DEVADURGA BY

ITS JUDGMENT DATED 08.11.2013 AND FURTHER THE

SAME BEING CONFIRMED BY THE I ADDL. SESSIONS

2

JUDGE AT RAICHUR IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 45/2013 DATED

11.03.2014.

THIS

REVISION

PETITION

COMING

ON

FOR

HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC

No.324/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections

279, 304-A of IPC and under Section 187 of M.V. Act and

ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

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

under Section 279 of IPC and two years simple

imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under

section 304-A of IPC and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/-

for the offence under Section 187 of I.M.V. Act which was

confirmed in Crl.A.No.45/2013 by the learned Sessions

Judge is before this Court in this revision.

2.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

Deodurga Police filed a charge sheet against the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279,

304-A of IPC and under Section 187 of IMV Act based on

3

the complaint wherein it is contended that on 30.10.2010

at about 12.00 P.M. on Lingsugur-Gulbarga main road near

puncture shop of CW.9 at Thinthini bridge, which is within

the limits of Jalahalli police station, accused drove his Tata

Ace vehicle bearing No.KA-33/6093 in a rash and negligent

manner so as to endanger to human life and personal

safety of others and on the road leading from Thinthini

Mouneshwar temple dashed to the wife of complainant

Smt. Maremma who was proceeding on the left side of the

road due to which she sustained grievous injuries and she

was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Gulbarga wherein she died

due to the injuries sustained in the accident and accused

ran away from the spot without intimating to the

concerned.

3.

Trial Court after securing the presence of the

accused, framed the charge. Since accused pleaded not

guilty, trial was held.

4

4.

Prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and

relied on eleven documents to bring home the guilt of the

accused.

5.

Accused statement was recorded on conclusion

of the prosecution evidence wherein accused denied all the

incriminatory materials put to him. He did not explain his

version to the incident.

6.

Learned trial Magistrate after hearing the

arguments, convicted and sentenced the accused as

referred to supra.

7.

Being aggrieved by the said order, accused

preferred an appeal in Crl. Appeal No.45/2013. Learned

Sessions Judge after securing the records and hearing the

arguments in detail, dismissed the appeal by confirming

the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial

Magistrate.

8.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner

vehemently contended that both the Courts have wrongly

5

convicted the accused for the offence alleged against him.

He further argued that the material available on record is

hardly sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. It

is admitted in cross-examination of PW.1 that himself and

his wife alone had been to fair and nobody else had

accompanied them and if that were to be so, there is no

eyewitness to the incident. He also argued that the

material contradiction elicited in the cross-examination of

prosecution witnesses is totally i