Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30730 (KAR)

SRI MUTHURAJ v. STAE BY

CRL.RP/1262/2019 · 2025-01-23

H P Sandesh

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2965 CRL.RP No. 1262 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1262 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MUTHURAJ S/O LATE SIDDAPPANAIDU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.7/144, MANJUNATHANAGAR BEHIND KSRTC DEPOT, KOLLEGAL CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571313. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATHISHA D.J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY K.R.TRAFFIC POLICE, MYSURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/05/2018, PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSORE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.128/2016, THEREBY THE CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 14/6/2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M. AT MYSORE IN C.C.NO.427/2012 THEREBY CONVICTED THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 338 AND 304 (A) OF I.P.C. AND R/W 134 (a) (b) AND 187 OF I.M.V. ACT. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2965 CRL.RP No. 1262 of 2019 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for admission. The learned counsel for revision petitioner again seeks time. In the previous occasion also the counsel sought for time on the ground that senior counsel is not well. The counsel for the revision petitioner is having the habit of seeking time when the matter is listed and this matter is of the year 2019 and for a period of almost 6 years, the matter has not yet admitted. The records are also received. 2. Having considered the grounds in the revision petition and also the reason assigned by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, mainly evidence of PW3 and PW4 who are the eye witnesses to the incident of accident and specifically deposed before the Trial Court by PW3 that he was proceeding in the bicycle and the victim was proceeding in the motorcycle infront of him and this revision petitioner came from rear side and hit the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2965 CRL.RP No. 1262 of 2019 motorcycle as a result, he had sustained injuries and he was shifted to the hospital and he succumb to the injuries. Even PW3 also identifies the revision petitioner herein and the same is discussed in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of the judgment of the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court also while re-assessing the material on record, taken note of evidence of PW3 and PW4 and the same is also discussed in paragraph No.18 of the order of the First Appellate Court and hence, when there is a direct evidence against the revision petitioner that PW3 and PW4 are the eye witnesses and identified the revision petitioner and specifically deposed that due to rash and negligence on the part of the revision petitioner only, the accident taken place. 3. The counsel appearing for the State brought to notice of this Court the evidence of eye witnesses and the evidence also clearly discloses that PW3 and PW4 have categorically deposed with regard to the manner in which an accident was taken place and PW3 specifically deposes that after causing of the accident for some time, he parked - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2965 CRL.RP No. 1262 of 2019 the vehicle and thereafter again he left the place and also identified the petitioner. At the time of accident, CW5 was riding this motorcycle and CW5 also examined before the Court and he also re-iterates the evidence of PW3 in this evidence and specifically denied that he did not witness the accident. Having taken note of material on record, both Courts have considered the evidence of PW3 and PW4 who are the eye witnesses and hence the very scope of revision is limited. Hence, I do not find any ground to set- aside the order of the Trial Court. 4. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46