- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12636 CRL.RP No. 953 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 953 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SATISH KUMAR M. E. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O ESHWARAPPA, R/O. MARACHARAHALLI VILLAGE, THEETHA POST, KOLALA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VENKATESH S., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KYATHASANDRA POLICE, REPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, AT BANGALORE – 560001. …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 JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMKURU IN C.C.NO.2389/2009 DATED 08.09.2016 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 279, 304(A) OF IPC AND U/S 134(b) OF IMV ACT AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION CONFIMED BY THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKURU IN CRL.A.NO.28/2016 DATED 06.07.2017 AND ALLOW THE CRL.RP BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE. Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12636 CRL.RP No. 953 of 2017 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.02.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THROUGH VIDEO 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, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 08.09.2016 in C.C.No.2389/2009 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and 1stJ.M.F.C., Tumakuru and its confirmation judgment and order dated 06.07.2017 in Crl.A.No.28/2016 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 2. The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience. Brief facts of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.06.2009 at about 5.15 p.m., the petitioner being the driver of the Tractor bearing its registration No.KA-06-T-4254 and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12636 CRL.RP No. 953 of 2017 Trailer No.4255 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Tractor against one Manjamma who was going on the left side of the road. Consequently, she sustained injuries and died on the spot. Based on the complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered a case in Crime No.167/2009 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC r/w 134(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as PWs.1 to 12 and got marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13. The Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty of the offences under the above said provisions and rendered the conviction. Hence, this revision petition. 5. Heard Sri.Venkatesh.S, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the concurrent findings of the Courts below are contrary and opposed to the law and facts, therefore, the said findings are required to be set aside. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12636 CRL.RP No. 953 of 2017 7. It is further submitted that both the Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence properly with proper perspective. Though the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 4 and 5 would disclose that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the said Tractor, the facts remains that, PWs.1 and 2 were not present at the scene of occurrence. They have been fabricated and created for the purpose of the case. There are some contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in respect of having chased the Tractor and apprehended the accused. 8. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW.7 would indicate that PWs.1 and 2 came to the spot after 15 minutes of the incident. When the evidence of PW.7 is considered as true, the fact remains that, PWs.1 and 2 were not present at the spot. Therefore, their evidence as eyewitnesses to the incident creates doubt, therefore, it is necessary to interfere in the findings of the Courts below. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 9. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State vehemently opposed the said - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12636 CRL.RP No. 953 of 2017 submissions and he further submitted that both the Courts have arrived at a conclusion based on the evidence of the injured witnesses and also eyewitnesses. Nothing is there to show that the accused was not driving the said vehicle as on the date of the incident. Therefore, there is no either infirmity or illegality in the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction. Hence, interference with the said findings need not be necessary. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, it is necessary to have a cursory look upon the evidence of all the witnesses. 11. PW.1 deposed that as on the date of the said accident, he had been to work at the brick factory and after finishing the said work, he was coming to his home by walk around 5.15 p.m. All the workers who were working in the said brick factory were proceeding in the said road. The Tractor which was being driven by the accused came from - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12636 CRL.RP No. 953 of 2017 Kyathasandra side dashed Narsamma, Arasamma and Manjulamma. After the accident, the accused did not stop the vehicle and he went away by driving the said vehicle. He further stated that himself and PW.2 chased the said Tractor in an auto and brought back the Tractor to the spot. However, the driver of the Tractor ran away from the spot. He identified the driver of the Tractor. Further, he stated that the said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. However, in the cross-examination, he admitted that he chased the Tractor in the scooter. 12. Similarly, PW.2 stated in his evidence that he was proceeding from Kyathasandra towards Belgumba Road around 5.15 p.m., he stated to have witnessed the accident. As he was proceeding in his scooter, he took PW.1 along with him and chased the Tractor after the accident and brought the Tractor to the spot of accident. 13. On reading of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, nowhere, it is mentioned the registration number of the vehicle which was being driven by PW.2. The Investigating Officer did not collect the information regarding the vehicle which - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12636 CRL.RP No. 953 of 2017 was driven by PW.2. When the evidence of PW.1 is contrary to the evidence of PW.2, the presence of these witnesses at the spot appears to be doubtful. Therefore, their evidence in respect of rash and negligent act of the driver and identity of the driver required to be disbelieved. 14. Similarly, P.W.3 though she said to be present at the spot, she did not identify the driver of the vehicle. 15. PW.5 Arasamma was also present at the spot. She is the mother of the deceased Manjamma. She deposed in her evidence that soon after the incident, she became unconscious and she did not identify the driver of the said vehicle. When analyzing the evidence of PWs.3 and 5, PW.3 says that when she went to the spot, PW.5 was not present at the spot. However, PW.5 says that she was present and she became unconscious. 16. PW.6 was grazing the cattle in the nearby land where the accident had taken place. He identified the driver of the Tractor in the examination-in-chief. However, in the cross-examination, there is inconsistencies about the said identity. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12636 CRL.RP No. 953 of 2017 17. PW.7 deposed in his evidence that he was standing near Siddalinga Cross Road and stated to have witnessed the accident. According to him, PWs.1 and 2 were coming in the Hero Honda motorcycle. He stated to have seen the driver of the vehicle. However, he was not present at the spot when the accident had taken place. Therefore, the evidence of this witness in respect of rash and negligent act of the driver is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. Even though the prosecution had examined many witnesses to show that the driver of the said Tractor drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident, the fact remains that, there are some inconsistencies in the evidence of these witnesses in respect of rash and negligent act and also the identification of the accused. When the evidence of all the witnesses is inconsistent to each other in respect of the accident and also identity of the accused, the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused. As the Courts below did not extend such benefit to the accused, interference with findings of the Courts below is - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12636 CRL.RP No. 953 of 2017 justified and the findings of the Courts below in rendering the conviction are liable to be set aside. 18. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.09.2016 passed in C.C.No.2389/2009 by the Principal Civil Judge and 1st J.M.F.C., Tumakuru and the judgment and order dated 06.07.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.28/2016 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru are set aside. (iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC r/w 134(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN, List No.: 19 Sl No.: 7