@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K. Ramanna, J.
Though this matter is listed for admission, with consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both parties; the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner has come up with this revision petition u/s 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMEC, Snrangapaina. dated 8/7/05 in C.C. No. 53/04, which has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Crl. A. No. 81/2005 dated 13/10/1006. Hence, this revision.
3. The case of the respondent/prosecution is that on 16/10/2003 at about 11.30 a.m. the revision petitioner being the driver of the goods tempo bearing Regn. No. TN-23-T-3438 on Mysore K.R.S. Road near Belagola MNPM Circle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Hero Honda motor bike belonging to P.W. 1/Nagaraj bearing Regn. No. KA. 09. W. 8719 who was travelling in the said vehicle along with his wife Savithri/P.W.2 and also dashed against a Hero Honda motor cycle bearing Regn. No. KA. 11. E. 8358 belonging to the deceased M.J. Puttalingaiah and caused fetal injuries to the said Puttalingaiah and his wife Lakshmamma, who were going in the said vehicle, consequently both died at the spot and P.Ws. 1 and 2 sustained various type of injuries.
4. To prove the case, respondent/ prosecution examined 12 witnesses and 10 documents were got marked. After recording the statement of petitioner u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and after considering the evidence placed on record, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for all the charges levelled against him and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for an offence punishable u/s 279 of IPC; fine of Rs. 500/- for an offence punishable u/s 337; Rs. 1,000/- fine for an offence punishable u/s 338; to undergo S.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- for an offence punishable u/s 304A of IPC. Further, to pay fine of Rs. 250/- for an offence punishable u/s 134A and Section 134B r/w Section 187 of Motor Vehicle Act. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and after for reappreciation of the evidence placed on record, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence; this revision petition.
5. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was a driver of the good? tempo at the relevant point of time arid his vehicle was proceeding from Mysore towards KRS Road near Belagola MNPM Circle. He dashed the two motor bikes which were coming from opposite direction and consequently, Puttalingaiah and his wife Laxmamma succumbed to the injuries sustained at the spot and P.Ws. 1 and 2 sustained simple and grievous injuries. The evidence of prosecution witnesses has been elaborately discussed by trial Court as well as the learned Sessions Judge in depth in their judgments. The width of the road near the scene of offence is about 22� feet Of course, the goods tempo was proceeding in opposite direction and instead of going towards left side of the road, the vehicle went to the extreme right side and dashed against the motor cycle. Consequently, Laxmamma and Puttalingaiah who were going in the motor cycle died at the spot and P.Ws. 1 and 2 who were going in another motor cycle behind the motor cycle of the deceased sustained grievous injuries. The Courts below rightly accepted the evidence of injured witnesses, who arc the best witnesses to say with regard to the manner in which the goods tempo was driven by the petitioner. It is a concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below. On account of rash and negligent driving of petitioner two persons succumbed to the injuries and 2 persons sustained injuries. The IMV report discloses that accident was not on account of any mechanical defects There is no delay as such to file the complaint. P.Ws 1 and 2 have sustained both simple and grievous injuries. Therefore, contention of learned Counsel for petitioner that it is due to the contributory negligence of the rider of the bike cannot be accepted. Hence, the order Of conviction passed by the Courts below against petitioner for the aforesaid offences are liable to be confirmed.
6. As far as sentence imposed on petitioner is concerned, the trial Court sentenced the petitioner even for an offence u/s 279 of IPC which is a minor offence merges with the major offence. The learned Sessions Judge totally erred in confirming the order which is liable to be modified and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court for an offence u/s 279 of IPC is liable to be set aside. The order of sentence passed for the offences under Sections 337, 338 IPC and under Sections 134-A and 134B r/w and u/s 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not require any modification. But the sentence imposed on petitioner by the trial Court for an offence u/s 304A of IPC is excessive and without any basis. Considering the facts and circumstances involved in the case of the manner in which the accident took place, 1 am of the considered opinion that the order of sentence imposed on petitioner directing him to undergo S.I. for 2 years is to be modified.
7. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. The order of sentence passed against the petitioner for an offence u/s 279 is hereby set aside. The sentence passed against the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 337, 338 of IPC and Sections 134-A and 134-B r/w Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act arc hereby confirmed. The sentence imposed on the petitioner/Accused for an offence punishable u/s 304A of IPC is hereby modified and he is sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- i.d., he shall undergo S.I. for a period of one mostly for the said offence.
8. The petitioner shall surrender before trial Court within 30 days to undergo sentence.
