- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20463 CRL.RP No. 1063 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1063 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: JAYASHEELA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O VENKATESH, R/AT NO.856, ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, RAMESHWARA LAYOUT, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHEKHARAPPA H. C., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANGARAPET POLICE STATION, BANGARAPET 563 114 REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 11.07.2022 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR (SITTING AT K.G.F.) IN CRL.A.NO.04/2022 IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.12.2021 Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20463 CRL.RP No. 1063 of 2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BANGARPET IN C.C.NO.668/2008 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279 AND 304A OF IPC AND SECTION 187 OF IMV ACT, SAME HAS BEEN REGISTERED BY BANGARPET POLICE, BANGARPET AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER The accused has preferred this criminal revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bangarpete (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in CC No.668/2008 dated 14.12.2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, which is confirmed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, (sitting at KGF) (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A. No.4/2022 dated 11.07.2022. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision petition are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20463 CRL.RP No. 1063 of 2022 3. The brief facts leading to this revision petition is that the Bangarpete Police have laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 28.07.2008 at about 5.45 am, when CW1 and CW11 were going for morning walk in front of Gold Field Collage on Bangarpet Main Road, Kolar, one motorcyclist was proceeding from Bangarpet to Kolar. At that time, one Eicher canter bearing registration No.KA-40/A-1359 which was coming from the opposite side, being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the motor cycle, the impact of which the motorcyclist fell and sustained grievous injuries on his head and his left hand was fractured and the driver fled the spot. Immediately CWs1 and 11 rushed to the accident spot and recognized the injured as Ramachandra s/o Narayanappa. He was not in a position to speak. CW1 took the injured to the Government Hospital, Bangarpet in an autorickshaw. Doctor has given initial treatment and suggested to take him to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar for higher treatment. While on the way to Hospital in an ambulance, the injured succumbed to accidental - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20463 CRL.RP No. 1063 of 2022 injuries. Thus the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and under Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the driver of the Canter for the aforesaid offences. In pursuance of the summons, the accused appeared before the trial Court in CC No.668 of 2008. Substance of plea was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined seven witnesses as PWs1 to 7 and marked nine documents as Exhibits P1 to P9. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses appearing against him but he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and under Section - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20463 CRL.RP No. 1063 of 2022 187 of Motor Vehicles Act and the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple improvement for ten days; the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.8,000/- for offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months; further, the accused was also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable under Section 187 of the MV Act and in default of payment of fine, shall undergo simple imprisonment for two days. 5. Being agreed by the judgment of conviction and order in sentence passed by the trial court, the accused preferred appeal before the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2022. The said appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 11th July 2022. Being agreed by the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court in appeal, the revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20463 CRL.RP No. 1063 of 2022 6. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that according to the prosecution, CW1 & 11 who are examined as PWs1 & 5 are the witnesses to the incident. CW1 is also the complainant. Both PWs1 and 5 have deposed that they could not see the accused at the time of the accident. The Investigating Officer has also registered case against the driver of the vehicle for commission of offence and Sections 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code read with section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. When the driver of the vehicle was not found at the spot after the accident, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to issue notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act to ascertain as to who was the driver of vehicle at the relevant point of time. The same is not complied with. The Investigating Officer has not explained anything as to the non- compliance of the provisions under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. PWs1 and 5 are not eye-witnesses to the incident. They are planted witnesses. Though PW1 is not the eye- witness, police have registered the complaint posing that he is eye-witness-cum-complainant. The mahazar witness also not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20463 CRL.RP No. 1063 of 2022 supported the case of the prosecution. Both courts have failed to appreciate the records in accordance with law and facts. There is no evidence as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle. The trial court has committed the accused for alleged commission of offences, which is not sustainable under law. The appellate Court also has not properly appreciated the evidence and record. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the revision petition. 8. On the other hand Sri M.V. Anoop Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader, would submit that the trial court has properly appreciated the evidence record in accordance with law and facts. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial court, which is confirmed by the appellate Court and hence he sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 9. Having heard the arguments on both sides and perusal of material placed before me, the point that would arise for my consideration is “Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court which is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20463 CRL.RP No. 1063 of 2022 confirmed by the appellate Court, suffers from legal infirmities or illegalities?” 10. I have carefully examined the materials placed before me. It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.07.2008 at about 5.45 am one Eicher canter bearing registration No.KA- 40/A-1359 which was coming from the opposite side, being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the motor cycle, the impact of which the motorcyclist fell and sustained grievous injuries on his head and his left hand was fractured and the driver fled the spot. At that time, CW1 and CW11 were going for morning walk, immediately rushed to the accident spot and recognized the injured as Ramachandra and took the injured to the Government Hospital, Bangarpet in an autorickshaw. Doctor has given initial treatment and suggested to take him to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar for higher treatment. While on the way to Hospital in an ambulance, the injured succumbed to accidental injuries. Thus the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and under Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20463 CRL.RP No. 1063 of 2022 11. In all, the prosecution has 16 witnesses and out of them seven witnesses have been examined. CW1 is the complainant and CW 11 is the witness and CWs.2 & 3 are panch witnesses, CWs 4 to 7 are panchanama witnesses, CW 8 to 10 are relatives of deceased who speak about the accident, CWs12 & 13 are official witnesses, CW14 is the Medical Officer who has issued post-mortem report CWs15 & 16 are investigating officers who have deposed as to their respective investigation. The prosecution has given CW6 to 10, 13 & 14. 12. CW1-K Rama Murthy, said to be the complainant is examined as PW1. He has deposed in his evidence that in the month of July 2008, one day at about 5:45 am, he and PW5- Nagaraju were going for a morning walk. At that time, one motorcycle was proceeding from Bangarapet towards Kolar. At that time, the driver of Eicher Canter drove the same in a high speed towards Kolar side and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the Canter ran over the rider of the motorcycle. The hand of the rider got fractured, and he also sustained severe bleeding injuries to his head. Then they shifted the injured in an autorickshaw to Government Hospital, Bangarapet - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20463 CRL.RP No. 1063 of 2022 after taking first-aid treatment there, the injured was being shifted to SNR Hospital, Kolar for higher treatment. On the way to hospital, injured succumbed to injuries. After the body was shifted to Bangarapet Hospital and filed complaint against the driver of the offending canter and they could not see the driver of the vehicle. The Investigating Officer has not issued any notice to the owner of the vehicle as required under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act to ascertain as to who was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time. The owner of the vehicle Srinivas examined as PW6. He has not supported the case of prosecution. He has not deposed anything against the accused. 13. PW7-Investigating officer has also not deposed anything as to the issuance of notice to owner of the vehicle under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accident took place on 28th July, 2008. 14. PW1 has not whispered anything against the accused. PW5 eye-witness has deposed regarding the accident, but during the cross-examination he has deposed that he cannot say whether he has furnished the name of the accused - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20463 CRL.RP No. 1063 of 2022 to the police or not. Further, during the cross-examination, he has clearly admitted that he has not given statement to the police and he has not seen the accused. 15. PW7 has deposed that on 29th July 2008, he has arrested the accused and released him on bail. Without issuing notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, The investigating officer has arrested the accused, the same has not been explained by the prosecution. PW6-Srinivas son of Venkatesh has deposed that he has executed the indemnity bond on 16th August 2008. The registration certificate of the vehicle is also not produced by the investigating officer to ascertain as to who was the owner of the vehicle. Exhibit P7 is the Indemnity bond executed by one N Venkatesh son of Narayanappa. This N Venkatesh has not been cited as witness, instead CW12-Srinivas s/o Venkatesh is shown as the owner of the vehicle and examined before the court as PW6. The Investigating Officer has not collected the Driving licence of the driver of offending vehicle to prove that he was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time. The Investigating Officer - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20463 CRL.RP No. 1063 of 2022 has also not explained anything as to non-production of RC book, driving license, etc. 16. It is also necessary to mention here as to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as to burden of proof in offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. In the case of NANJUNDAPPA AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2022 LIVELAW (5) 489, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur Stricto Sensu would not apply to criminal cases. 17. Absolutely, there are no evidence as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The trial court has convicted the accused without ascertaining as to who was the driver and owner of the vehicle. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court is only on the basis of assumptions, presumptions and surmises, which is not sustainable under law. The appellate Court has also failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance law and in its proper perspective. Hence, the point arose for consideration is answered in the affirmative. Resultantly, I proceed to pass the following: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20463 CRL.RP No. 1063 of 2022 O R D E R i) Revision Petition is allowed; ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14th December, 2021 passed in CC No.668 of 2008 by the trial Court which is confirmed by judgment dated 11th July, 2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2022 by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge at Kolar sitting at KGF, are set aside; iii) Accused/revision petitioner is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act; iv) The fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused/revision petitioner shall be refunded to him, in accordance with law; v) The Registry to send the trial court records along with copy of this Order to the concerned court forthwith. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE SNC,LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22