- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 938 OF 2024 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: RAKESH KUMAR BOHARA S/O LATE SRI GANAPATHA LAL BOHARA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT KISHAN NIKETHAN, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, 1ST MAIN, BEHIND CHOWDESHWARI PETROL BUNK, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN - 573116. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.H.S.CHANDRA MOULI, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI. RAJATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANNARAYAPATNA RURAL P.S REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. VANS JAIN S/O PAVAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE BACK SIDE CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116 Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 3. NATARAJU H N S/O LATE NARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT VIJAYANAGARA EXTENSION, BELUR ROAD, HASSAN CITY - 573201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.SANDESH.J.CHOUTA, SR. COUNSEL FOR KUM.SANYA MALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI.GIRISHA.H.M, ADVOCATE FOR R3; (V/O DTD: 12.03.2025 R3 IS REPORTED TO BE DECEASED & THE SAME IS TAKEN ON RECORD)) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF DISCHARGE DATED 01.04.2024 PASSED BY THE Ld.IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN IN S.C.NO.261/2023 AND RESTORE THE CASE FOR TRIAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER This petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C is by the complainant challenging the impugned order passed by the trial Court allowing the application filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 3. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that on 07.10.2015, accused No.1 had met with an accident and sustained fracture to his right hand and was having POP plaster. Therefore he was not able to drive the offending vehicle and was aware of the fact that in such situation if he drives the vehicle, it may cause accident and endanger to the life and property of others. Despite the same on 24.10.2015, at 12.30 p.m., accused No.1 drove the offending vehicle belonging to accused No.2 along with deceased Sourabh Kumar Jain in the front passenger seat plying from Udaipur village towards Channarayapatna in a rash or negligent manner. As a result of which accused No.1 lost control over the vehicle and in the down gradient the vehicle toppled and thereby accused No.1 has committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 304 I.P.C. r/w Sections 186 and 181 of IMV Act. In - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 the said accident, deceased Sourabh Kumar Jain sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. 4. It is alleged that accused No.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle, knowing fully well that accused No.1 is not possessing a valid driving license and the vehicle was not having valid insurance allowed him to drive the offending vehicle and thereby accused No.2 committed the offences punishable under Sections 5 r/w 180, 146 and 196 IMV Act. 5. In respect of the incident First information was given by Rakesh Kumar Bahora-the father of deceased. In the First Information Report, it is stated that on 24.10.2015 at 10.30 a.m, his son Sourabh Kumar Jain left in the Offending vehicle saying that he would go to Udaipura along with his friend i.e, accused No.1 Vansh Jain. Around 12.30 p.m, when complainant was in his shop, he received a phone call from an unknown person saying that near Algondanahalli gate his car has met with an accident. Therefore, complainant and his friend - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 Bhagvati Lal Jain @ Pintu went to the spot and came to know that while his son deceased Sourabh Kumar Jain was driving the offending vehicle with accused No.1, due to tire bust, he lost control over the offending vehicle and it toppled. While in the said accident, his son Sourabh Kumar Jain died on the spot, accused No.1 also sustained injuries to his right shoulder and back. With the help of Pawan Jain, who came to the spot, the dead body of Sourabh Kumar Jain was sent to Government Hospital and he has shifted accused No.1 to Nagesh hospital. 6. Based on the complaint, the concerned police registered case in Cr.No.188/2015 against deceased Sourabh Kumar Jain. The investigating officer conducted the inquest, spot mahazar and seized the vehicle from the spot. He also recorded the statements of witnesses. When the investigation was going on, on 06.11.2015, the complainant i.e., the father of deceased has given a representation to the higher police officer and Human Right Commission, alleging that on the date of incident, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 accused No.1 Vansh Jain was driving the offending vehicle along with deceased Sourabh Kumar Jain in the front passenger seat. Near Algondanahalli, on Baraguru hand post - Channarayapattana Road, with an intention of causing the death of Sourabh Kumar Jain, some vehicle has dashed the offending vehicle from its backside and sped away. The offending vehicle had stopped at a distance of 12–15 feet from the main road inside one feet deep ditch. He doubt the handy work of Vansh Jain in the incident. 7. When he went to the spot, he was in a shock and at that time, he signed some blank papers. However, later he came to know that utilising his signatures in the blank paper, a complaint was prepared as though accident was caused due to tyre bust when the offending vehicle was driven by deceased, Sourabh Kumar Jain. All the four tires of the offending vehicle are interact. Half of the body of Sourabh Jain had protruded out of the left rear glass. It appears, to save somebody it is falsely stated that deceased Sourabh Kumar Jain was driving the vehicle. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 8. It appears after the complainant gave representation to the Human Rights Commission, the copy of which is available in the charge sheet and other superior police officers. The Superintendent of Police has issued order dated 14.01.2016, transferring the investigation from CPI, Channarayapattana to CPI Holenarasipura. After the transfer of investigation, the second investigating officer has recorded statements of Birja Pala, Bheena, Dasappa, Nanjegowda, Sunadara and Narayana. According to the prosecution, after hearing the sound of accident, these witnesses went to the spot and saw the body of deceased protruding out of the rear window of the offending vehicle and accused No.1 was standing outside the offending vehicle and he was crying and saying that he was drawing the vehicle when the accident took place. In the charge sheet, these witnesses are referred to as eye witnesses. They have also stated that one of the hand of accused No.1 was plastered, but they do not remember which hand. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 9. On the basis of the so called eye witnesses statement, the investigating officer has filed a charge sheet against accused No.1 alleging that prior to the incident he had met with an accident and his right hand was plastered. Despite knowing that he is not in a position to drive, he drove the offending vehicle and caused the accident and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 304 IPC i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which is exclusively tribal by the Court of Sessions. 10. So far as accused No.2 is concerned, allegations against him are that being the owner of the offending vehicle he has allowed accused No.1 to drive the same knowing well that he is not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident and that the offending vehicle was not covered by a valid insurance. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate has committed accused Nos.1 and 2 to the Court of Sessions to face trial. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 11. Accused No.1 sought discharge on the ground that it was deceased Sourabh Kumar Jain, who was driving the offending vehicle when the accident took place and in fact, the complainant who is the father of deceased has stated in his complaint that accident occurred due to the tyre bust. At the earliest available opportunity, the relatives of the deceased have clearly stated that it was the deceased who was driving the vehicle when the accident took place. However, due to the ill advice of certain persons, complainant got the investigation transferred to some other police officer and a case is built up as though accident was caused by accusedNo.1 and that he has intentionally caused the accident. 12. Accused No.2 has sought discharge contending that he has sold the offending vehicle to the complainant the father of deceased Sourabh Kumar Jain and question of allowing accused No.1 to drive the vehicle, knowing fully well that he is not possessing a valid driving license and that there was no insurance would not arise. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 13. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections stating that initially case was registered against deceased Sourabh Kumar Jain alleging that he was driving the offending vehicle, but later on the investigation revealed that it was accused No.1, who was driving the offending vehicle and caused the accident. The witnesses have clearly stated that vehicle was driven by the person who was having bandage on his hand. There is prima facie material to proceed against accused Nos.1 and 2 and sought for dismissal of the application filed by them. 14. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the Session Court has allowed applications filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 and discharged them. 15. Aggrieved by the impugned order, complainant has filed this petition contending that there is prima facie material to proceed against the accused persons and without providing opportunity to the prosecution to lead evidence, the trial Court erred in discharging the accused. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 While considering the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C, it is not permissible to the trial Court to hold a mini trial. Since the deceased and accused No.1 were the only inmates of the car, the burden is on the accused No.1 to establish how exactly the accident took place. Since there was shoddy investigation, it was transferred to another police officer and he has filed charge sheet. It is not a case of zero evidence. The entire material placed in the charge sheet is required to be taken into consideration, to examine whether there is prima facie case made out against the accused to hold trial. At the stage of framing charge, the trial Court is required to look into the evidence placed on record by the prosecution. However, the trial Court has committed grave error in examining the merits of the case, without providing opportunity to the prosecution. Viewed from any angle the impugned order is not sustainable and hence the petition. 16. In support of his arguments learned counsel for complainant has relied upon the following decisions: - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 (i) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheetal Sahai & Ors. (Sheetal Sahai)1 (ii) Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander (Amit Kapoor)2 (iii) State Vs. J.Doraiswamy (Doraiswamy)3 (iv) State by Lokayukta Vs. Hiremath (Hiremath)4 (v) Bhawna Bai Vs. Ghanshyam and Ors. (Bhawna Bai)5 (vi) Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa (Tarun Jit Tejpal)6 (vii) State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (Ashok Kumar Kashyap)7 (viii) Captain Manjit Singh Virdi Vs. Hussain Mohammed (Doraiswamy)8 (ix) State of Gujarat Vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao (Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao)9 17. On the other hand learned counsel representing accused Nos.1 and 2, supported the impugned order. He would submit that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and from the beginning, it is the specific case of the prosecution that deceased Sourabh Kumar Jain, who was driving the vehicle when the accident took place. However, for reasons best known to him, the complainant has made allegations against the investigating officer and 1 (2009) 8 SCC 617 2 (2012) 9 SCC 460 3 (2019) 4 SCC 149 4 (2019) 7 SCC 515 5 (2020) 2 SCC 217 6 (2020) 17 SCC 556 7 (2021) 11 SCC 191 8 (2023) 7 SCC 633 9 (2019) 4 SCC 149 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 therefore the Superintendent of Police transferred investigation to another police officer. After the transfer, the second investigating officer has built up a case, as though accused No.1 was driving the offending vehicle and intentionally caused the accident resulting in the death of Sourabh Kumar Jain and filed charge sheet against him. 18. So far as accused No.2 is concerned, he would submit that the offending vehicle was sold by accused No.2 to the father of deceased. Such being the case accused No.2 never handed over the said vehicle to accused No.1 and therefore he cannot be held guilty of offences punishable under Sections 5, 180, 146 and 196 of IMV Act. Rightly, the trial Court has discharged him also and sought for dismissal of the petition. 19. In support of his arguments, learned counsel representing accused No.1 has relied upon the following decisions: - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 (i) Baldev Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Baldev Singh)10 (ii) Harbeer Singh Vs. Sheeshpal and Ors. (Harbeer Singh)11 (iii) Krishna Lal Chawla and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (Krishna Lal Chawla)12 (iv) State by SP Through the SPE, CBI Vs. Uttamchand Bohra (Uttamchand Bohra)13 20. Heard arguments and produced the record. 21. In the light of the ratio in the decisions relied upon by both parties, it is necessary to examine the impugned order in the light of the charge sheet filed against accused Nos.1 and 2. 22. It is an unfortunate case wherein deceased Sourabh Kumar Jain and accused No.1, who were childhood friends met with an accident while travelling in the offending vehicle. In the said accident, while deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained, accusedNo.1 also suffered injuries to his back and right hand. There are no 10 (2014) 12 SCC 473 11 (2016) 12 SCC 418 12 (2021) 5 SCC 435 13 (2022) 16 SCC 663 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 eye witnesses to the incident, though the second investigating officer has examined Birja Pal, Bheena, Dasappa, Nanjegowda, Sunadara and Narayana and recorded their statements, and they are referred to as eye witnesses. In fact, when the accident took place, they were engaged in the manufacture of jaggery and only after hearing the sound of accident, they reached the spot. They stated to have heard accused No.1 crying and saying that he was driving the offending vehicle. This fact is disputed by accused No.1 on the ground that a few days earlier to the accident in question, he had met with an accident while driving a two wheeler and in the said accident, he had sustained injury to both hands and while the right hand was covered in plaster, he had a sling on the left hand and therefore he was not driving the offending vehicle. On the other hand, it was deceased who was driving the same. 23. Right from the time of filing the complaint, it is consistently stated by the complainant that it was his son - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 who took the offending vehicle belonging to him, saying that he would go to Udaipura and drove the offending vehicle. It is also the case of the prosecution that on account of the accident, the offending vehicle toppled and the photographs of the offending vehicle captured at the spot indicate that it's left side was touching the ground. Therefore, in all probabilities, if deceased was driving the offending vehicle, he would found slided towards the left portion of the vehicle. In fact, his body was found protruding through the rear side window of the vehicle. It appears on account of the intensity of the accident, he was thrown out of the vehicle. 24. During the course of his statement, the accused No.1 has consistently maintained that deceased was driving the offending vehicle when the accident took place. The second investigating officer has recorded the statement dated 02.02.2016 of Bhagwati Lal @ Pintu, a friend of complainant. In his statement, the said Bhagwati Lal @ Pintu has stated that when he and father of deceased reached the spot and enquired with accused - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 number one, he disclosed that it was deceased who was driving the car when the accident took place. In fact, two photographs of accused No.1 with his right hand in the POP plaster and left hand in sling are available in the charge sheet. The further statement dated 26.01.2016 of complainant given before the second investigating officer reveal that these two photographs are produced by him before the investigating officer. It creates doubt whether the accused No.1 was able to drive with fracture to his right hand. 25. In his representation dated 06.11.2015, to the Human Right Commission, photo copy of which is available at page-59 of the charge sheet, the complainant has stated that when the offending vehicle along with deceased Sourabh Kumar Jain was driven by the accused No.1, someone has dashed another vehicle against it from the backside and sped away. This accident is caused with an intention to kill his son Sourabh Kumar Jain and he doubt the involvement of accused No.1. In his further - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 statement 26.01.2016 also, the complainant has reiterated this allegation. If this version is accepted then according to the complainant while accused No.1 was driving the offending vehicle with Sourabh Kumar Jain, another vehicle came behind the offending vehicle and dashed against it resulting in accident. 26. However, the second investigating officer has not conducted any investigation as to the involvement of another vehicle, if so whether the accident was caused on the instructions of accused No.1. Since accused No.1 was also traveling in the offending vehicle and in the event of such accident, in all probabilities he would also be at the risk of sustaining injuries, it is doubtful whether accused No.1 would risk the same by instructing some other persons to cause the accident of the offending vehicle in which he was traveling. 27. In the charge sheet, a requisition dated 24.10.2016, given by the investigating officer to the - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 Committal Court is available at page-136. In the said requisition, the investigating officer has requested for subjecting accused No.1 to polygraphic test on the ground that complainant has expressed doubt that accused No.1 has mixed some substance in the cold drink of deceased Sourabh Kumar Jain and when he became unconscious, along with his friends made him to sit in the offending vehicle, assaulted on his head with some weapon and thereafter caused accident as though the death was due to accident. In the light of the doubt expressed by the complainant, investigating Officer wanted accused No.1 to be subjected to polygraphic test. Though the trial Court has issued notice to accused No.1, on the said application, no order on that application is passed. It appears the investigating officer has not pressed the said application. 28. Thus, from the material placed on record it is evident that at the earliest available opportunity it is revealed that the offending vehicle was driven by deceased. Later on the basis of doubt expressed by the - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 complainant, investigation was handed over to another police officer. Without examining the reasons for the doubt expressed by him, only on the basis of statements said to have been given by Birja Pal, Bheena, Dasappa, Nanjegowda, Sunadara and Narayana who allegedly came to be spot after the accident and who are not eye witnesses to the actual incident, the investigating officer has implicated accused No.1. The doubt expressed by the complainant that accused No.1 had intention of killing his son is also not supported by any evidence. There is no investigation to the allegations made by the complainant that deceased was drugged by accused No.1 and when he lost conscious, he was assaulted on head and killed and another vehicle came from behind and dashed against the offending vehicle to project it as accident and it was stage managed by accused No.1. 29. However, the statement of H.R.Nikhil, a friend of deceased indicate that at 11.17 a.m., he spoke to the deceased who informed him that he has come in his car with accused No.1 and Nikhil requested him to visit him. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 Similarly, the voluntary statement of accused No.1 reveal that immediately before the accident, deceased spoke to a person who informed the deceased that he will send the parcel in the bus and deceased spoke to him for about 30- 40 seconds. After they proceeded about 2 kms accident took place. According to the prosecution, accident took place at about 12.30 p.m. In fact the CDR of deceased Sourabh Kumar Jain indicate that at 11:59:50 hours he received a call. This create doubt expressed by the complainant that deceased was drugged by accused No.1 etc., 30. It is true that at the stage of framing charge, the Courts cannot go into the merits of the prosecution case. However, it is required to examine whether any prima facie material is there to frame the charge. Having lost his son, complainant was desparate to see that accused No.1 should not escape on the ground that deceased was driving the vehicle. In the light of the shoddy investigation conducted by the second - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 investigating officer, there is also no prima facie material to proceed against accused No.1 so far as the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 304 I.P.C. 31. So far as accused No.2 is concerned the investigation reveal that at the first instance, he purchased a second hand car from a showroom and later sold the same to the complainant through one Janardhan. Though he has handed over the RC book, tax card, sale receipt, delivery note and Form No.29 and 30 to the purchaser, later he came to know that the registration certificate of the offending vehicle was not yet transferred in the name of the complainant. Such being the case accused No.2 had no control in preventing the offending vehicle being handed over either to deceased or accused No.1. Therefore, the trial Court is justified in discharging accused No.2 also. 32. In the light of the material placed in the charge sheet, this Court finds no perversity in the conclusions - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:16759 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2024 arrived at by the trial Court calling for interference. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly the following: ORDER 1. Petition filed by the complainant under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 2. The impugned judgment and order dated 01.04.2024 in SC.No.261/2023 on the file of IV Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Channarayapatna, Hassan, is hereby confirmed. 3. The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records along with copy of this order forthwith. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52