- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8181 CRL.RP No. 216 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.216 OF 2021 BETWEEN: SRI. RAMANJANEYALU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O MALLANNA R/AT BANIPALLI VILLAGE RAYADURGA TALUK ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT ANDHRAPRADESH STATE-515 001 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT REDDY COMPLEX HEBBAL LAYOUT, MYSURU-570 016. …PETITIONER (BY SRI LOKESH D.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI P NATARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY H.D.KOTE POLICE STATION MYSURU DISTRICT REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.RP FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU, SITTING AT HUNSUR IN Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8181 CRL.RP No. 216 of 2021 CRL.A.NO.24/2015 DATED 31.12.2020 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT H.D.KOTE IN C.C.NO.225/2009 DATED 02.02.2015 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. This petition is filed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 02.02.2015 passed in C.C. No.225/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 134A, 134B and 304A of IPC and also against the concurrent finding passed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.24/2015 dated 31.12.2020 wherein confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court except modifying the sentence from two years to one year with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that this petitioner on 18.12.2008 at about 7.15 p.m., within the jurisdiction of H.D.Kote police at Kolagala gate, when the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8181 CRL.RP No. 216 of 2021 complainant and her husband, after completion of agricultural work, were standing on the left side pavement in order to cross the road and this petitioner drove the Scorpio bearing Reg. No.KA05-MF-5859 in a rash and negligent manner an dashed against the husband of the complainant, as a result, he fell down and sustained severe bleeding injuries and the petitioner who was driving the offending vehicle flee away from the spot without providing any medical aid to the injured and immediately, the injured was shifted to the H.D.Kote hospital and after first aid, he was shifted to the K.R. Hospital at Mysuru for better treatment and he succumbed to the injuries. 4. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case and investigated the matter and after completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet against this petitioner and this petitioner was secured and he did not plead guilty and hence, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses as PW1 and PW13 and also got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P16. The petitioner was subjected to 313 statement and he has not led any defence evidence. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8181 CRL.RP No. 216 of 2021 5. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record particularly considering the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and also considering the factual aspects of application of principles of res-ipsoloquitor which clearly depicts that the things itself speaks about the accident and he went and dashed against the person who was standing on the pavement and considering the rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner and on failure to exercise duty with recoverable proper care and precaution guarding against the injuries to the publics and did not give any treatment to the victim and he escaped from the spot and also considering the age of the deceased at the time of the accident as 42 years old, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and other offences. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.24/2015 and the First Appellate Court also having considered the material on record, assessed the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are eye witnesses to the incident. P.W.2 is the eye witness-cum- mahazar witness to the spot mahazar and also considering the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8181 CRL.RP No. 216 of 2021 cumulative effect of entire material available on record, particularly taking note of Ex.P16-sketch which depicts the place of accident and rashness on the part of the petitioner and even tyre marks clearly disclose the negligence on the part of the petitioner. However, the First Appellate Court considering the material on record, confirmed the Judgment of the First Appellate Court reducing the sentence from two years to one year. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding that this petitioner had caused the accident, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 7. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court failed to consider the material on record, though the prosecution failed to prove that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent act of the petitioner and committed an error in convicting the petitioner and First Appellate Court also committed an error in confirming the same and there is no legal evidence and the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8181 CRL.RP No. 216 of 2021 8. Per contra, learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State would submit that P.W.1 is none other than wife of the deceased and she was along with the deceased and after finishing their agricultural work, both of them were crossing the road, in order to go to their house. She brought to notice of this Court Ex.P16-sketch which clearly depicts the manner in which the petitioner drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. P.W.2 is also an eye witness and spot mahazar witness and nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.2, who is also an independent witness. Though other eye witnesses have turned hostile, but the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is consistent and the First Appellate Court rightly convicted the petitioner and exercised the discretion by modifying the judgment of the Trial Court reducing the sentence from two years to one year and it does not require any interference. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State and also considering the grounds urged in the petition as well as the material on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8181 CRL.RP No. 216 of 2021 (i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner and whether the First Appellate Court committed an error in confirming the same and it requires interference of this Court by exercising revisional jurisdiction? (ii) What order? Point No.(i) 10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State, admittedly, P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and her evidence is clear that both of them after finishing their agricultural work, in order to go to their house, standing in pavement and driver of the offending vehicle came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against her husband. Immediately, he fell down and he sustained injuries around the body and driver of the vehicle did not stop the vehicle at the spot and went away from the place of the accident and immediately, people who were there at the spot shifted him to Government Hospital and then shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that distance between agricultural land and main road is about - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8181 CRL.RP No. 216 of 2021 3 Kms. and vehicle came from H.D. Kote towards Mysore and categorically says that her husband, who was standing in the pavement was about to cross the road and no doubt, answer is elicited that more number of vehicles passes through in the said road, it is suggested that he did not see the accused on that day and the same was denied. 11. The other witness is P.W.2, who is a mahazar witness as well an eye witness. He also categorically deposes that driver of the offending vehicle came from H.D. Kote, in order to go to Mysore and caused the accident, as a result, he fell down and sustained injuries and thereafter, he flew away from the place and when 407 vehicle came in the said road, immediately, injured was shifted to the hospital and he also identifies the signature in the mahazar and Ex.P3. In the cross-examination, he admits that for the first time, he says that he had informed the police and also categorically says that he witnessed the incident of accident at 10 metres distance and was standing, in order to cross the road in the pavement and both the husband and wife were standing at the distance of 10 feet and also admits that there was darkness at the time of the accident. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8181 CRL.RP No. 216 of 2021 12. Having considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, no doubt, other witnesses are mahazar witnesses, P.Ws.7, 8 and 9 are eye witnesses, and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they were cross-examined and nothing is elicited. Having reassessed the material on record, no doubt, scope of revision is very limited and this Court need not go into the evidence, the Court has to examine whether there is perversity in the finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and to that extent, Court has to look into the material on record. Having perused the material on record, particularly the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, though P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and P.W.2 is an independent witness and also considering the fact that Ex.P16- sketch is not disputed, it is clear that deceased was standing in the footpath which is having 5 feet and sketch Ex.P16 clearly disclose tyre mark and road is 18 feet width and tyre mark is also found to the extent of 90 feet distance from the place of accident and nothing is found in the explanation of the accused in 313 statement, when he was examined. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly P.Ws.1 and 2 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8181 CRL.RP No. 216 of 2021 and the document of Ex.P16. The photos which are marked as Exs.P4 to P6 shows damages caused to the vehicle as well as IMV report i.e., Ex.P13 discloses slight dent on the bonnet. 13. Having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, this Court does not find any perverse finding and the order of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court not suffers from its legality and correctness. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, regarding causing of accident and recklessness on the part of the petitioner, it is a clear case of res ipsa loquitur and things itself speak the manner in which the accident has occurred and there was recklessness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. 14. However, taking note of the material on record, the Trial Court invoked offence punishable under Section 279 and 337 IPC and when the ingredients of Section 279 IPC merges with the severe offence of Section 304-A IPC, the Trial Court ought not to have invoked Section 279 IPC and though Section 337 IPC is invoked, the same is erroneous and no injured is examined before the Trial Court and it is not the case of the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8181 CRL.RP No. 216 of 2021 prosecution that any of the injured had sustained injuries. Hence, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court lost sight of the same and it requires interference only in respect of invoking Sections 279 and 337 IPC and the same requires to be set aside. 15. In respect of Section 134(a) and 134(b) read with Section 187 of IMV Act is concerned, specific evidence of the witness is that though the driver of the vehicle slow down the vehicle, he did not stop the vehicle and did not provide medical aid to the injured and considering the offence under Section 304-A IPC and also manner in which accident has occurred and the document of Ex.P16 is very clear that due to rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner, accident has occurred and he could not control the vehicle, in view of rashness and negligence driving of the vehicle and there was 90 feet tyre mark found as disclosed in the sketch at Ex.P16. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with regard to the sentence is also concerned and the First Appellate Court modified the sentence from two years to one year. Hence, I answer point No.(i) as partly affirmative with regard to - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:8181 CRL.RP No. 216 of 2021 the offence under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and rest of the offences is concerned, the same is confirmed. Point No.(ii) 16. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned order passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 337 IPC is hereby set aside. (iii) If any fine amount is deposited by the revision petitioner, the same is ordered to be refunded in favour of the petitioner on proper identification. (iv) In respect of the other offences is concerned, the same is upheld and confirmed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN/ST