Partly allowed

Gourishanker S/O Karbasayya Swamy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2012CRL.RP/2504/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka Criminal Revision Bench altered the sentence for rash driving causing death. Conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was modified with reduced imprisonment and increased fine. Conviction under Section 187 of MV Act was confirmed with compensation ordered.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified; imprisonment reduced to one month; fine set at Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 20,000; compensation of Rs. 20,000 awarded to dependent.

Gourishanker S/O Karbasayya Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2012

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO 2504/20 12

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

R/O VILLAGE CHALKAPUR 0CC: BUSINESS GOURISHANKER S/O KARBASAYYA SWAMY TQ.HUMNABAD. AGED NOW AT HALLIKHED-B. : 30 YEARS,

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

AND (BY SRLRAHUL R. ASTURE. ADVOCATE)

¶10

REPRESENTED BY SPP. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH HALLIKHED-B POLICE STATION. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH. GULBARGA,

¶11

RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT. ANURADHA M. DESAI. ADDL. SPP)

¶13

THE PETITIONER THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CRPC , BY THE ADVOCATE FOR REVISION PRAYING

¶14

26.11.2011 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER VTC-I AT DT.8.3.2011 C,C,NO,312/2008 HONBLE COURT TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT THE PASSEI) BY THE J.LF.C. COURT. HUMNABAD & ACQUIT ORDER ORDER THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE 279, 304-A & 187 IMV ASIDE IMPUGNED THIS OF CONVICTION DATED BIDAR IN CRL. APPEAL NO.13/2011 AND ALSO SETTiNG AND ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN

¶15

FOR ADMISSION THIS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: PETITION COMING ON

¶16

ORDER

¶17

accused The convicted comrnittinL the offences P/U/S. 279 and 304-A of IPC and U/S 187 of is for IMV Act.

¶18

the accused Splendor 11.10.2007 at 4.00 Ramlinggeshwar on Khtak Chincholi Honda road, motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-32/K-3470 in a The facts of the prosecution case disclose drove Hero P.M., near the land of 2. that on rash and negligent manner dashed one Sharanappa and Sultanabad Wadi

¶19

that the cause for accident is not due to any mechanical Sharnappa. The complaint is lodged by PW. 1. who is the Sharnappa. caused his death. PW.6 is the grandson of deceased was subjected for postmortem. The motor vehicle inspector inspected the vehicle and submitted his report stating dead was coming along with deceased at the time of accident and The he came and informed his father about the death of son with the charge sheet. defect of the vehicle and the report of MVI is filed along of deceased body

¶20

the incident, court observations are made. Regarding evidence of PW.6 and PW,9 who are the eyewitnesses to In paras 13 and 14 of the judgment, the trial following 3.

¶21

accident and grandson of his examination.in-chief the the deceased about 2 gears ago, at about 4.00 is eyewitness In 13. PW,6 to states that Sharnappa.

¶22

¶23

that fractured. stated that this accident occurred states grandfather grandfather was taking bundle of Sharnappa Khatak from Handikera and land of Ramling, at that time,from hospital from of his grandfather was there to Bidar hospital, where his examination towards their house from the land. his grandfather. In the accident, call his court land. firewood on his head on his head. years, His house is situated two deceased the accused the his his kilometers due to the negligence of accused away from opposite side, a motorcycle rider the injuries. PW.6 has identified the village came in high speed and dashed to went succumbed going motorcycle rider. PW.6 in his cross Chincholi were before The deceased was aged about 60 i.e., When they were coming near the leg to to He P.M., himseif and his grandfather father. The injured was shifted to

¶24

father. PW.6 admits that he came the accident occurred is a busy road. PW.6 admits that soon after the accident, he went to call his accused from one Bhagwan Janti. PW.6 admits that the spot where to know about the name of the

¶25

to the hospital. rider Sharnappa. from opposite side, a motorcycle Sharnappa. and years ago, he was returning from Ratkal village. He alighted from dashed of Sharnappa the bus in Chincholi cross and was the accident, deceased firewood on his head. At that time. the accident. In his examinationin-chief states that he know the the injured was going by taking a bundle of speed the was fractured, In the mean time, a came high going towards his village by walk. In front of him, In in About one Sharnappa two The 14. PW.9 is independent witness to leg Tom-tom vehicle came. He shifted to

¶26

¶27

¶28

admits that more vehicles use to of accident occurred at about 4.00 statement. of PW.9. accident run on the road where the accident this, nothing has been suggested accused before the Court was the driver of the motorcycle and this elicited accused in the cross-examination the accused. nor due police occurred occurred. PW,6 states that he do his Except the counsel for not know what is written by the negligence to in The by P.M. PW.9 in his cross-examination

¶29

months and he shall undergo SI for a period of one year and in default, he shall undergo SI for a period of six and a fine of Rs.4000/- for the offence punishable U/S. The trial court on the basis of the evidence. finds the accused is gufity and sentenced to pay fine of 304-A of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall Rs. 1OOO/- for the offence punishable U/S. 279 of IPC 4.

¶30

¶31

¶32

Rs.500/- for the offence P/S. 187 of IMV Act and In Sessions judge has confirmed the order of the trial court. Hence, this petition. undergo SI for six months and he shall pay a fine of default, he shall undergo 51 for 3 months. The learned

¶33

modified. The accused is to be sentenced for a period of PW.9 and on the discussion above by the trial court it 5. On going through the evidence of PW.6 and harsh. The sentence for conviction UIS.279 of IPC is dearly establish that the finding of guilt by the trial court is sound and proper. The Appellate Court has not erred in upholding the conviction recorded by the trial defauk to SI for a period of two months. The sentence court. However, the sentence Imposed appears to be The accused petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- In one month and shall pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and In Imposed of conviction for one year U/S. 304-A of IPC Is modified. The sentence of Imprisonment is set aside.

¶34

¶35

U/s. 187 of IMV Act is confirmed. The fine amount of Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to the complalnant/PW. 1 as compensation. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. default, suffers to SI conviction and fine amount for offence punishable for a period of two months. The

¶36

WDGE

¶37

VBC

Gourishanker S/O Karbasayya Swamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gourishanker S/O Karbasayya Swamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Suresh Kumar S/O Laximinarayan Agrwal

Eadar Satyanarian S/O Narsimha Murthy Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka

Shantappa S/O Padmanna Dandavati Ors. Vs Mahaveer S/O Bharmappa Sagari

Hanumanth Rao Sangashetty Vs through Gescom Vigilance

Noor Jahan Begum W/O Mohammed Latif Mongewale Vs the State Karnataka

Bheemreddy Bhaidreddy Ors. Vs Saheb Gauda S/O Guappa Bilwal