@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
N. Ananda, J.@mdashThere are concurrent findings of courts below that petitioner (accused) has committed offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC. Therefore, he is before this court. This court while exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 Cr.P.C., does not sit as a court of second appeal. This court can interfere with the impugned judgment if the courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioner.
2. I have heard Sri Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Vijaykumar Majage, learned HCGP for State.
3. It is established from evidence on record that deceased was the rider of motorcycle involved in accident and complainant was the pillion rider. The accident took place at about 4 p.m. on 25.02.2008. Deceased Venkataramanappa was riding motorcycle from Bangalore towards Kolar and petitioner (accused) was driving Tempo bearing No. KA-03-5417 from Kolar towards Bangalore. The vehicles involved in accident were moving in opposite directions. The accident took place near junction of Bangalore-Narasapura Road and Bangalore-Kolar Road.
4. It is established from evidence of PW2, contents of spot mahazar and rough sketch that petitioner (accused) was driving vehicle at a high speed. The accident took place on off side of road from the direction in which petitioner (accused) was proceeding. The position of vehicles shown in rough sketch (Ex. P. 9) would indicate that petitioner (accused) had driven vehicle towards its off side and rider of motorcycle (deceased) was keeping to proper side of road. In the circumstances, a presumption would arise that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of tempo by petitioner (accused). The petitioner (accused) has failed to elicit from prosecution witnesses facts to rebut presumption which would arise against him.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner (accused) would submit that PW2 was the pillion rider. Therefore, he was not able to see vehicles coming from opposite direction. There is nothing on record to indicate that rider of motorcycle (deceased) had blocked vision of pillion rider. The petitioner (accused) had also made an unsuccessful attempt to establish that he was not the driver of vehicle. However, evidence of prosecution witnesses would prove that petitioner (accused) ran away from place of accident, without providing medical treatment to injured.
The trial court on proper appreciation of evidence has held petitioner (accused) guilty of offences punishable under sections 279, 337 & 304A IPC. The learned Judge of I-appellate court has confirmed the findings of trial court. The learned Judge of I-appellate court has set aside sentence imposed on petitioner (accused), fine of Rs. 1,000/- and default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months for an offence punishable u/s 279 IPC.
6. The learned counsel for petitioner, relying on judgments of Supreme Court reported in
7. The Supreme Court has invoked section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the fact that accused therein has undergone certain period of imprisonment. The aforestated decisions were rendered by Supreme Court bearing in mind the facts and circumstances obtained therein.
8. On careful consideration of aforestated decisions, I find the Supreme Court has not laid down any law or laid down the situations wherein benefit of Probation of Offenders Act could be extended to accused found guilty of an offence punishable u/s 304A IPC. Therefore, aforestated decisions are not applicable to facts of the instant case. In the circumstances, there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The revision petition is dismissed.
