Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30420 (KAR)

TABREEZ v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.RP/1056/2017 · 2025-05-20

S Rachaiah

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18292 CRL.RP No. 1056 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1056 OF 2017 BETWEEN: TABREEZ S/O ABDUL RASHEED AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT MOHIDDIN MANZIL NEAR PRANTHYA SCHOOL MARPADY VILALGE MOODABIDRI MANGALORE TALUK – 574 227. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY BAJPE POLICE STATION, MANGALORE D.K. REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.09.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.43/2017 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.02.2017 PASSED BY THE JMFC-II COURT, MANGALORE IN C.C.NO.2026/2015 AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED OF THE CHARGES LEVELLED AGAINST HIM. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 25.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18292 CRL.RP No. 1056 of 2017 CAV ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.02.2017 in C.C No.2026/2015 on the file of the JMFC (II Court), Mangaluru, and its confirmation judgment and order dated 04.09.2017 in Crl.A No.43/2017 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, wherein the Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience. Factual matrix of the case: 3. It is a case of the prosecution that, on 06.02.2015 at about 8.40 p.m., on Mangalore-Moodubidre road, the accused being the driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA-19-AA-2366 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner towards Moodubidre near Vikas Nagar, Kandavara Village, Mangalore Taluk and dashed against the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-19-EL-4088, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18292 CRL.RP No. 1056 of 2017 which was being driven by PW.1 – Nitesh along with pillion rider – Udaya Shetty. Due to the said accident, the pillion rider was thrown from the motorcycle, the bus ran over the pillion rider who succumbed to the injuries on the spot. P.W.1 had sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. Based on the complaint, a case has been registered against the accused. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined, in all, 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and got marked 20 documents as per Exhibits P1 to P20. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offences stated supra. On appeal being filed, the same was confirmed by the Appellate Court. Hence, this revision petition. 5. Heard Sri Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18292 CRL.RP No. 1056 of 2017 passed by the Appellate Court are required to be set aside as the concurrent findings are perverse, illegal and opposed to facts and law. 7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner / accused that the Courts below have committed serious errors in holding that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case without being any material evidence. 8. It is further submitted that the Courts below have committed serious errors in holding that the petitioner was driving the said bus at the time of the accident. In fact, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was driving the bus. The prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.5 though it appears to be true, the contradictory evidence has not been considered by the Trial Court. P.W.5, who is the owner of the bus, has admitted in his evidence that he is the owner of two buses, his younger brother was looking after the said buses and he was not aware of the drivers of the said buses. When the evidence of P.W.5 did - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18292 CRL.RP No. 1056 of 2017 not support regarding the accused was driving the said bus, recording the conviction would amount to non- application of mind and the same is erroneous and the said judgment of conviction cannot be sustained. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner / accused prays to allow the revision petition. 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent vehemently justified the concurrent findings and he further submitted that the findings of the Trial Court appears to be appropriate for the reason that P.W.5 being the owner of the bus, admitted in his evidence that he has received the notice from the police and also admitted his signature on the said notice. He further stated that the accused was the driver of the said bus. Though he was cross-examined, he withstood the cross-examination and supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the evidence of P.W.5 and it is not in dispute that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving. Therefore, the judgment of conviction has to be sustained. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18292 CRL.RP No. 1056 of 2017 10. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, it is appropriate to consider the evidence of all the witnesses to arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not any irregularities are there in the findings of the Courts below. 11. P.W.1 being the rider of the motorcycle, has deposed in his evidence that on 06.02.2015, after having finished his work, himself and the pillion rider were driving towards Polali. When they reached near Vikas Nagar, the bus which was coming from Mangalore side towards Moodubidri, touched to the handle of the motorcycle, consequently, he fell down towards left side whereas the pillion rider fell down on the right side of the bike. In the meantime, the backside tyres of the bus ran over the head of the pillion rider. The pillion rider died at the spot. Though he has been cross-examined by the defence, he withstood the same and supported the case. Nothing is there to discredit his evidence. 12. P.W.2 stated to be the eyewitness to the incident also supported the case of the prosecution. However, he - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18292 CRL.RP No. 1056 of 2017 admitted in the cross-examination that he had not seen the accused at the spot as the driver of the bus. 13. P.W.3 turned hostile regarding the accident as well as the identity of the accused. P.W.4 also partially turned hostile. P.W.5 supported the case of the prosecution. 14. P.W.6 being the Head Constable of respondent - police station stated to have recorded the statement of P.W.1 in the hospital. 15. P.W.7 was working as the Conductor of the bus, has turned hostile and also admitted that the accused was working as the driver of the bus. 16. The rest of the witnesses are not relevant for the purpose of consideration of their evidence. 17. P.W.1 being the injured witness has supported the case of the prosecution and he identified the driver of the bus. Similarly, P.Ws.5 and 7 have also supported the case of the prosecution. All these witnesses are consistent that the accused was driving the bus from Mangalore towards Moodubidre. Assuming that he was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner, the fact remains that, the evidence of P.W.1 would indicate that the body of the bus - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18292 CRL.RP No. 1056 of 2017 touched the handles of the motorcycle. Consequently, P.W.1 and the pillion rider fell on the ground. 18. It is needless to say that the bus was coming from the opposite direction to the motorcycle. Assuming that the bus coming on the left side of the road, the opposite vehicle must be coming to its left side. If the vehicle comes to the middle of the road, then only the possibility of the bus touching the right handle of the motorcycle would occur. However, the sketch, which is marked as Exhibit P17, would indicate otherwise. Therefore, there is a doubt in respect of the incident of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner / accused. That doubt should have been given as a benefit of doubt to the petitioner. However, both the Courts have committed an error in not extending the said benefit. Hence, it is necessary to set aside the concurrent findings of conviction. 19. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:18292 CRL.RP No. 1056 of 2017 ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.02.2017 passed in C.C No.2026/2015 by the JMFC (II Court), Mangaluru, and the judgment and order dated 04.09.2017 passed in Crl.A No.43/2017 by the Principal Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, are set aside. (iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. SD/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss