- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17441 CRL.RP No. 310 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 310 OF 2017 BETWEEN: KRISHNAMURTHY K. S. S/O. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT. CHAMUNDESHWARI EXTN., TIPTUR TOWN-572 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.B. RYAKHA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY TIPTUR RURAL P.S., TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201, (BY HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA SPP, BENGALURU-560 001.) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 14.02.2017 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TIPTUR IN CRL.A.NO.10023/2016 AND ORDER AND CONVICTION DATED 9.06.2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., TIPTUR IN C.C.NO.93/2014. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 21.02.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THROUGH VIDEO Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17441 CRL.RP No. 310 of 2017 CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.06.2016 in C.C.No.93/2014 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Tiptur and its confirmation judgment and order dated 14.02.2017 in Crl.A.No.10023/2016 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner / accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience. The factual matrix of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 07.09.2013 at about 7.15 p.m., the deceased namely - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17441 CRL.RP No. 310 of 2017 Sri. Shambulingaiah along with other inmates were going in an auto bearing Reg.No.KA-44-4911 from V. Mallenahalli to Tiptur. While they were traveling in the said auto on Yadiyur-Tiptur road, at about 5.00 a.m, in the morning hours, the accused drove the said auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the right side wheel of the bullock cart. Consequently, Shambulingaiah succumbed to the injuries and the informant had sustained simple injuries. Thereafter, he lodged a complaint before the respondent-police. The respondent police have registered the case in Cr.No.92/2013 and conducted investigation. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 and got marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the accused found guilty of the offences stated supra. Therefore, the accused is before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17441 CRL.RP No. 310 of 2017 5. Heard Sri. M.B. Ryakha, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below have committed an error in appreciating the evidence and also failed to take note of the proper admissions. 7. It is further submitted that though it is stated the P.W.1 and 2 are the inmates of the auto and P.W.3 is an eye witness to the incident, the fact remains that none of the witnesses have spoken about rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto. Merely because the auto allegedly hit the wheel of the bullock cart that does not mean that the auto was being driven in a negligent manner. It is further submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition on the ground that both the Courts have committed error not only appreciating the evidence on record but also applying the settled principles of law. Making such - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17441 CRL.RP No. 310 of 2017 submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State opposed the said submissions and justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction and he further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who were the inmates of the auto have deposed that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. 9. It is further submitted that even though, the said witnesses have been cross examined thoroughly, nothing has been elicited to discredit their evidence. Therefore, their evidence is considered as relevant and proper. P.W.3 eye witness to the incident also deposed that when he was proceeding towards Hulukette Gate with his bullock cart, the autorikshaw came from the back side and dashed to the right side wheel of the bullock cart. When all these witnesses have consistent in their evidence that the petitioner drove the autorikshaw in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the hind side of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17441 CRL.RP No. 310 of 2017 the bullock cart as a result of which, the accident had occurred. Due to the said accident, one of the inmates died and other two inmates have sustained simple injuries. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below are proper and appropriate. There is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the said findings. Hence, the petition may be rejected. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, it is appropriate to have a cursory look upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 11. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the inmates of the auto of which the petitioner was driving. Both are consistent in their evidence that the petitioner while driving the auto, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and caused accident. P.W.3 being an independent witness has deposed that while he was coming on his bullock cart, he witnessed that the petitioner had dashed his auto to the bullock cart. Consequently, one of the inmates died and others two have sustained simple injuries. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17441 CRL.RP No. 310 of 2017 12. It is needless say that the doctrine of res-ipsa-loquitor theory squarely applicable to the case on hand. On reading of the evidence of all the witnesses and also perused the sketch of the case, it can be inferred that the petitioner had caused due to his negligence. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out a case to interfere with the findings. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1 CT:PK