- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4189 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 518 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. AKRAM PASHA S/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS DRIVER OF EICHER BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA-14-5567 NATIONAL GARAGE, N.R.P.M.K ROAD, SHANKAR MUTT BANGALORE-560 004. RESIDING AT MASJID ROAD, 3RD BLOCK, MAYASANDRA TURVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 221. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALARAM M.L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TURUVEKERE P.S. REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4189 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2016 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.12.2013 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,,TURUVEKERE IN C.C.NO.315/2009 AND THE SAME BEING CONFIRMED IN CRL.APPEAL NO.10022/2014 BY THE LEARNED V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR ON 16.02.2016, AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. 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 learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that on 22.03.2009 at 9.30 a.m., when the tractor-trailer bearing No.KA-06-T-2906-2907 was going from T.B. Cross side towards Mayasandra near coconut garden of Jaggesh with C.Ws.1 to 23 as its passengers, a Eicher mini lorry bearing No.KA-14-5567 was driven rashly and negligently by the accused from T.B. Cross side and dashed against the right side of the tractor-trailer from behind. In the accident, Jayalakshmamma and other two inmates of the tractor sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The other passengers succumbed to the injuries while taking to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4189 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2016 the hospital in the tractor and there are three deaths and several persons have sustained injuries i.e., C.Ws.2, 5, 8, 9 and 14. The police registered the case, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. 3. The accused was secured and he did not plead guilty. Hence, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 21 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P35(a). The accused has not led any defence evidence and the Trial Court taking note of the evidence of eye witnesses, mahazar witness and Investigating Officer and so also considering the documents of complaint, statement of witnesses, inquest mahazar and PM report, comes to the conclusion that accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner. The Trial Court also taken note of the fact that answer was put to the eye witnesses by the accused counsel, wherein they admitted the accident. Hence, an accident has occurred at the time of overtaking the tractor. Thus after having admitted his guilt by so many categorical suggestions in the cross-examination of P.W.1, it is suggested to P.W.1 that when the canter vehicle tried to overtake the tractor-trailer, its driver tried to take the vehicle right to a little - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4189 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2016 extent and hence, the accident occurred, which has been discussed in paragraph No.20 of the Trial Court. The Trial Court also in paragraph Nos.21, 22, 24, 25, 26 and 27 comes to the conclusion that accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of the petitioner and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC and maximum punishment given was two years for the offence under Section 304A IPC. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.10022/2014. The First Appellate Court also having considered the material on record, both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, also taken note of the suggestion made to the witness during the course of cross-examination which is considered in paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 14 and in detail discussed the evidence of the injured witness in paragraph No.15 and so also identified the driver of the tractor, who was driving the vehicle and particularly, in paragraph No.18, over all discussion was made regarding both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the conviction - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4189 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2016 and sentence and confirmation, present revision petition is filed before this Court. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no material to attract Section 304A IPC. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that when the vehicle was moving in the same direction, suddenly driver of the tractor took the vehicle on the left side of the road, as a result, the rear portion of the trailer came into contact with the canter and the said fact has not been appreciated by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the evidence of witnesses is very clear with regard to the manner in which an accident has taken place and the said suggestion was made to the witness only with an intention to get the answer from the mouth of witness that accident has occurred when the driver of the tractor suddenly took the vehicle to the left side of the road and this material has not been considered by the Trial Court. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court sketch which is marked as Ex.P35 and contend that the same is evident regarding the manner in which the accident has taken place. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court has not considered - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4189 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2016 the document of Ex.P35 and it clearly shows that the accident has occurred in the middle of the road and if the same is considered in proper perspective, the Trial Court ought not to have come to such a conclusion. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court the IMV report with regard to the damages caused to both the vehicle. It is evident from the records that rear portion of the trailer is damaged. Hence, it is clear that suddenly, the tractor came on the left side of the road and as a result, the accident has occurred. All these material has not been considered by the Trial Court. Hence, it requires interference by exercising revisional jurisdiction. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent-State would contend that it is not in dispute that both the vehicles were proceeding in the same direction. It is not in dispute that tractor-trailer was proceeding ahead of the canter. He would contend that the very case of the prosecution is that canter came from rear side and hit the rear portion of the trailer. As a result, accident has occurred and three persons died on account of accident and injured eye witnesses appeared before the Court and given the evidence as regarding the accident is concerned. He also relies upon Ex.P13-IMV report which clearly - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4189 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2016 discloses that damages are caused to both the vehicles and Ex.P10 is the seizure mahazar. He also brought to notice of this Court that Ex.P13 is in respect of canter and specifically mentioned that front left corner bumper was damaged and the same damage is caused to the tractor also, it is very clear that right portion of the trailer was damaged and the same was taken note by the Trial Court. Hence, it does not require any interference and the material on record clearly discloses as to how an accident has occurred and res ipsa loquitur maxim is applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, no grounds to allow the revision petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State and considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and also keeping in view the contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed an error in appreciating the evidence and whether the order suffers from its perversity and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4189 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2016 impugned order passed by both the Courts suffers from its legality and correctness? (ii) What order? Point No.(i) 8. Having considered the material on record, particularly the factual aspects of the case, it is the specific case of the prosecution that accident has taken place on 22.03.2009 and that driver of the canter, who came from rear side in the same direction went and dashed against the tractor- trailer. It is also important to note that prosecution mainly relied upon the prosecution witnesses i.e., eye witnesses and in the cross-examination, very defence counsel suggested that tractor was going ahead of the canter and also suggestion was made that, in order to overtake the tractor the driver of the canter caused the accident. When such suggestions are made to the witness of the prosecution and the same is admitted by the prosecution witness. Hence, it is clear that tractor-trailer was ahead of the canter and driver of the canter came from the rear side and IMV report at Ex.P13 is very clear that right portion of the trailer was damaged. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4189 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2016 9. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly relies upon Ex.P35-sketch clearly depicts the place of accident i.e., in the middle road, the accident has taken place. It is also important to note that when canter came from rear side of tractor-trailer, even assuming that driver was on the middle of the road, he has to maintain distance while overtaking the tractor-trailer, but that is not the case of the defence. The defence itself clearly admitted that the vehicle was ahead of this canter and while overtaking the tractor- trailer, accident has occurred. When such evidence is available before the Court, Ex.P35 comes to the aid of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 10. It is also important to note that the very argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that suddenly tractor came on the left side of the road and accident has occurred. In order to substantiate the said contention, no suggestion was made to eye witnesses, who have sustained injuries in the accident and three persons have lost their lives in the accident is not in dispute. The Trial Court also considered the material on record and First Appellate Court in detail discussed the evidence on record and having re-appreciated the same, taken - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4189 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2016 note of specific suggestion made by the defence counsel to the driver in the cross-examination, wherein he admitted the tractor-trailer was ahead of the canter and canter came from rear side and hit rear portion of the trailer and damage is also caused on the rear portion of the trailer. When such being the material on record, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in re-appreciating the evidence. The scope of revision is very limited and if the finding given by he Trial Court is not legal and suffers from its legality and correctness, then the Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction and no such circumstance is warranted in the case on hand. Hence, I do not find any error in appreciating the material on record by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and order does not suffer from its legality and correctness. Therefore, there is no scope for exercising the revisional jurisdiction. 11. Now with regard to the sentence is concerned, admittedly, there were three deaths and accident has occurred and in the spot itself, a person died and another died while taking to the hospital and another died in the hospital is not in dispute. The Trial Court also, while considering the material on - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4189 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2016 record, taken note of the gravity of the offence and the Trial Court imposed sentence of two years for offence under Section 304A IPC commensurate with the gravity of the offence, since three persons have lost their lives and also injured eye witnesses have sustained simple and grievous injuries and several persons have sustained injuries. With regard to the sentence is concerned, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court in convicting the petitioner for a period of two years for offence under Section 304A IPC and no ground even to interfere with the sentence of the Trial Court. However, the Trial Court while passing the order of sentence not made it clear whether the sentence to run concurrently or consecutively. Having perused the order, it is an accident and offence invoked against the petitioner is under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and failed to take note of ingredients of offence under Section 279 IPC and the same merges with Section 304A IPC. Hence, conviction under Section 279 IPC is set aside. When the Trial Court has not made it clear whether the sentence is concurrent or consecutive, it should be concurrent and not consecutive. Therefore, the same is clarified. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:4189 CRL.RP No. 518 of 2016 12. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is set aside. The impugned order of sentence in respect of Section 279 IPC is set aside. (ii) The sentence to pay fine of Rs.500/- in respect of Section 337 IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1½ month, the sentence to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in respect of offence under Section 338 IPC and default sentence of six months and sentence for a period of two years and fine of Rs.3,000/- in respect of offence under Section 304A IPC is upheld. It is made clear that the petitioner is only acquitted for the offence under Section 279 IPC. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56