- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17309 CRL.RP No. 295 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 295 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SERIL VEGUS S/O LATE ANTHONI VEGUS AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A NO. F-2, SANNIDI APARTMENT, UNIVERSAL TYRE HOUSE, NANDIGUDDA MANGALORE - 575 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE BY NARASIMHARAJA TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 25.02.2017 PASSED IN C.C.NO.694/2012 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT MYSORE AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2018 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.85/2017 PASSED ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF TRIAL COURT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17309 CRL.RP No. 295 of 2018 ORAL ORDER This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.85/2017 dated 10.01.2018 by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court'), whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.694/2012 dated 25.02.2017 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysore (hereinafter referred to as the 'the trial Court'). 2. Abridged facts of the prosecution case are that: On 30.04.2012 at about 10.45 p.m., within the jurisdiction of N.R.Traffic circle on Mysore-Hunsure Double Road, near Paduvarahalli signal light junction, the revision petitioner being the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-19-F-2742 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to the same the luggage box door all of a sudden opened and hit the pedestrian by name S. Harish i.e., the deceased in the instant case. Owing to the impact of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Though he shifted to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17309 CRL.RP No. 295 of 2018 01.05.2012. As such, one Shivakumar, the cousin of the deceased has lodged the complaint before the N.R.Traffic Police Station as per Ex.P1 on 01.05.2012 against the driver of the KSRTC bus. On the strength of Ex.P1, the said police registered FIR against the revision petitioner in crime No.124/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. Subsequently, PW.9 conducted the investigation and laid a charge sheet against the accused/petitioner for the aforementioned offences before the trial Court. The trail Court, after securing the presence of the accused framed the charges against him for the said offences. 3. To prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution in total examined 9 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.9 and marked 9 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. However, the revision petitioner/accused also examined one witness as DW.1 and marked one document as Ex.D1. 4. Post assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the revision petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and thereby sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17309 CRL.RP No. 295 of 2018 offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, in default of payment of fine, further directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and further directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.85/2017. 6. The First Appellate Court after re-assessing the entire evidence on record, the dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner/accused by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel Sri Dilraj Rohit Sequeira, for the revision petitioner and the learned HCGP Sri Channappa Earappa for the respondent-State. 8. The primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the trial Court and the First Appellate - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17309 CRL.RP No. 295 of 2018 Court grossly erred while convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC without appreciating the evidence on record in a right perspective. It is an admitted case of the prosecution and the officer of the KSRTC, who was examined as DW.1 that the unfortunate incident was caused due to the negligence of the depot officer and not by the accused, who being the driver of the KSRTC bus. He further contended that on perusal of the evidence of the material eye-witnesses i.e., PW.2 to PW.4 so also Ex.P3-the sketch, clearly depict that the accused was driving the bus on the left side of the road by following the traffic rules. Unfortunately the luggage box on the left side of the bus, all of a sudden opened and hit to the pedestrian. Hence, the incident caused. By emphasizing on Ex.D1, the report issued by the DW.1, the learned counsel contended that the depot officers have not properly repaired the luggage box door with bolting system and the same was tied with the nylon thread. During the movement of the bus, all of a sudden, the said nylon thread was cut and the luggage box door was opened and the accident was caused. In such circumstance, there is no such negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. According to him, this - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17309 CRL.RP No. 295 of 2018 aspect was not property appreciated by both the Courts below. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition. 9. Refuting the above submissions, learned HCGP contended that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court after meticulously examining the evidence on record passed well-reasoned judgments, which do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He further contended that the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 clearly indicates, due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused, the luggage box door was suddenly opened and hit to the deceased. Nevertheless, the accused being the driver of the bus before starting his journey, failed to examine the condition of the bus. He also contended that the accident in question was not seriously disputed by the accused and he failed to explain his defence in his 313 statement. In such circumstances, the prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the revision petitioner/accused beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly convicted the accused for the offences he charged. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17309 CRL.RP No. 295 of 2018 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties so also on perusal of the entire evidence and materials on record, the sole point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.694/2012?" 11. I have given my anxious consideration on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties so also perused the materials and evidence placed before me. It could be gathered from the evidence and records that in the case on hand, the accident in question on the relevant date i.e., on 30.04.2012 at about 10.45 PM within the jurisdiction of N.R.Traffic circle on Mysore-Hunsure Double Road, near Paduvarahalli signal light junction is not seriously disputed by the accused. Owing to the said accident, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. 12. Coming to the aspect of alleged negligence on the part of the accused, though the prosecution has examined 9 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17309 CRL.RP No. 295 of 2018 witnesses, among them, PW.1-the complainant, who is the hearsay witness and PW.2 to PW.4 are eyewitnesses to the incident. On perusal of their evidence, they have collectively deposed that at the time of the incident, the deceased was walking on the footpath of the road and the bus was proceeding from Mysore to Mangaluru on the left side, at the place of incident, the luggage door on the left side of the bus was opened all of a sudden and hit to the deceased. On careful examination of their evidence, the rash and negligent act of accused cannot be gathered for the reason that the luggage box door was situated in the middle portion of the left side of the bus. Nevertheless, it is specific case of the prosecution that the said luggage door was locked before the incident all of sudden opened at the place of incident. It is specific evidence of DW.1-the retired Traffic Inspector that based on the statements and the report, he found that the accused is not responsible for the said incident. Accordingly, he has issued a report as per Ex.D1. According to him, before leaving the bus from depot, the depot officers have to examine the condition of the bus, if any, fault found in the bus, they have to rectify the same. Thereafter, they shall release the bus from the depot. In the case on hand, the depot officers have tied the luggage box door - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17309 CRL.RP No. 295 of 2018 from the nylon thread and the same was cut in the middle of the road during the journey, all of a sudden, the door was opened. The accused was totally unaware about the said aspect. In such circumstances, the evidence of the eye witnesses and other police officers no way conclude the prosecution case to prove that the accused drove the bus rash and negligent manner. No doubt, due to the unfortunate incident, the pedestrian lost his life. However, for the incident liability cannot be fastened to the driver, who was not aware of the condition of the luggage door. In such circumstance, I am of the considered view that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court are not justified in convicting the accused/revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. 13. In that view of the matter, interference is required in the impugned judgments passed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, I answer the point raised above in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17309 CRL.RP No. 295 of 2018 ii. The conviction and order of sentence imposed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysuru in C.C.No.694/2012 dated 25.02.2017, which was confirmed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Crl.A.No.85/2017 dated 10.01.2018, is hereby set aside. iii. The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. iv. The bail bond executed by the revision petitioner/accused shall stand cancelled. v. The fine amount, if any, paid by the revision petitioner/accused shall be refunded to him on due identification. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13