D. Krishne Gowda vs State of Karnataka

Pradeep D. Waingankar, J.—This Criminal Revision Petition u/s 397(1) of Cr.P.C. is filed to set aside the order dated 31.05.2008 in C.C. No. 46/2004 on the file of the II Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C., Mysore and to set aside the order dated 23.09.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 138/2008 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner/accused against his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 of IPC.

The petitioner was the accused before the Magistrate in C.C. No. 46/2004. On 02.12.2013 at about 9.45 pm, the petitioner-D. Krishnegowda was proceeding on his Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA 11 H 2558 from Mysore towards Bannur and at that time, one Channaiah along with two pillion riders came in Motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA 09 EB 5688 from opposite direction and dashed against each other. There was head on collision between both the Motorcycles. As a result of impact, both the riders and the pillion riders sustained injuries. Crime came to be registered in connection with the accident and the police, after investigation, filed the charge-sheet against both the riders. The charge-sheet filed against D. Krishnegowda was registered as C.C. No. 46/2004 and the charge-sheet against Channaiah was registered as C.C. No. 47/2004 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Mysore. After recording the evidence and hearing arguments, by common judgment dated 3105.2008 both the riders D. Krishegowda and Channaiah were convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced to pay fine.

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner-D. Krishnegowda preferred Criminal Appeal No. 138/2008 before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore. Upon merits, the appeal came to be dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner by the Magistrate. Questioning the legality and the correctness of the conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below this revision is preferred.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner'' is preferred, and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

During the course of the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is concurrent finding regarding the conviction and sentence of the accused by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence. Even otherwise, I have perused the judgment passed by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge with reference to the evidence placed on record. There is no reason for me to find fault with the concurrent finding of both the Courts below regarding conviction as well as sentence. Moreover, though the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC, he has been sentenced to pay a fine only. Hence, I pass the following order.

Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.