Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30484 (KAR)

ANTHONI @ GUNDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

CRL.RP/1300/2017 · 2025-05-02

S Rachaiah

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17841 CRL.RP No. 1300 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1300 OF 2017 BETWEEN: ANTHONI @ GUNDA S/O RAYAPPA AGED 31 YEARS OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O ALFONCE CITY, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWDA S G, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN POLICE CHANNARAYAPATHA HASSAN DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI 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 AND ORDER DATED 04.10.2016 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, HASSAN DISTRICT, SIT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA IN CRL.A.NO.154/2015 THEREBY DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC., 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 RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17841 CRL.RP No. 1300 of 2017 CAV ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 21.09.2015 in C.C.No.592/2011 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna and its confirmation judgment and order dated 04.10.2016 in Crl.A.No.154/2015 on the file of the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hassan District (sitting at Channarayapatna), 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. Factual matrix of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 has lodged the complaint stating that when P.W.1 and his nephew deceased Mahesh were proceeding in their sugarcane loaded bullock cart on the left side of the road in between Channarayapatna-Holenarasipura road on 09.11.2010 at about 6.00 p.m., near sugarcane factory of Srinivasapura, a lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-44-9920 driven by accused in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17841 CRL.RP No. 1300 of 2017 a rash and negligent manner and dashed hind side of the bullock cart as a result of which, both the bullocks fell down and sustained injuries and bullock cart was fully damaged and the rider of the bullock cart fell down on the surface. The wheel of the lorry ran over the head of the rider of the bullock cart, as a result of which, he died on the spot. Thereafter, a complaint came to be registered against the accused. 4. Based on the complaint, the respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.450/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC and section 134(B) of I.M.V. Act. After conducting investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. 5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 6 witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and got marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. The Trial Court recorded the conviction for the aforesaid offenses. In an appeal, the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17841 CRL.RP No. 1300 of 2017 the appeal. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this revision petition. 6. Heard Sri. Muniswamy Gowda S.G., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the concurrent findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction against the accused are contrary to the evidence on record and also opposed to the facts and law. 8. It is further submitted that the rider of the bullock cart accidentally slipped down and fell down on the ground and the lorry accidentally, ran over the head of the deceased-Mahesh. The damage of the bullock cart has not been ascertained and the injuries to the bullocks have also not been assessed during the investigation. A false story has been created for the purpose of getting compensation from the Insurance Company. The evidence of P.W.1 ought not to have been accepted for the reason - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17841 CRL.RP No. 1300 of 2017 that he is none other than the relative of the deceased and his presence at the time of accident is doubtful. 9. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 did not disclose that there was a rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the petitioner. P.W.5 being the owner of the lorry has not stated that the petitioner had taken the vehicle as on the date of accident. In the absence of proper evidence regarding rash and negligent driving and also regarding the identity of the petitioner, the Courts below ought not to have recorded the conviction on the basis of assumption and presumption. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the revision petition. 10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State vehemently justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below and he further submitted that, even though, P.W.1 happens to be the relative of the deceased, the fact remains that, he was present at the spot at the time of accident. He identified not only the petitioner, but also, damage caused to the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17841 CRL.RP No. 1300 of 2017 bullock cart. His evidence cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that he is the relative of the deceased. The Courts below on the basis of the said facts and circumstances, recorded the conviction by holding that the petitioner has been found guilty of the aforesaid offences. The petitioner has not made out any grounds to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the revision petition. 11. Having heard 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 only for the purpose of arriving at conclusion. 12. P.W.1 being a relative of the deceased, deposed in his evidence that the deceased was the son of his uncle. He further deposed that on 09.11.2010 around 5.30 p.m., the deceased was riding the bullock cart towards sugarcane factory for the purpose of unloading - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17841 CRL.RP No. 1300 of 2017 sugarcane. At that time, a driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-44-9920 dashed to the hind side of the bullock cart, as a result, the deceased Mahesh fell down on the ground and a lorry ran over his head and he died on the spot. He is stated to have lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1. Though, there were number of suggestions regarding identity of the accused and negligence on the part of the bullock etc., P.W.1 denied all the suggestions and he supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.1 was further suggested that he had not seen the accident personally, he denied the same and he deposed that he was present at the time of accident. 13. P.W.5-Mahesh admitted that the petitioner was the driver of the lorry as on the date of accident and he is stated to have got the lorry released in his favour after the accident. Though, there were number of suggestions regarding the accident and identity of the accused, it has been denied. 14. It is the case of the prosecution that the lorry dashed the bullock cart to the hind side, consequently, the bullock - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17841 CRL.RP No. 1300 of 2017 cart got damaged and bullocks have sustained injuries. None of the witnesses have spoken about the incident of damaged to the bullock cart and injuries to the bullocks. Such being the fact, believing the version of P.W.1 who is the sole witness to the accident and he happened to be the relative of the deceased, both the Courts ought not to have arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was found guilty of the offences. As such, I am of the considered opinion that both the Court have committed error in rendering the convictions, hence, the same are liable to be set aside. 15. 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 on sentence dated 21.09.2015 passed in C.C.No.592/2011 by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna and its confirmation judgment and order dated 04.10.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.154/2015 by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17841 CRL.RP No. 1300 of 2017 Hassan District (sitting at Channarayapatna), are set aside. (iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences punishable Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC and Section 134(B) of I.M.V. Act. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS/-