- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17440 CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1176 OF 2017 BETWEEN: MR SACHIDANANDA MURTHY S/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED: 66 YEARS, DRIVER OF CHANNABASAWESWARA BUS BEARING NO.KA-20-8366, # NO.350,NARASIMHA COMPOUND, KALY GATE,MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SMT. GAYATRI M., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MAGADI POLICE, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE. …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 AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC, MAGADI IN C.C.NO.99/2012 DATED 30.08.2016 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 338, 304A OF IPC, WHICH IS CONFIRMED IN THE CRL.A.NO.14/2016 ON 11.08.2017 BY THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 24.02.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17440 CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2017 CAV ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 30.08.2016 in C.C.No.99/2012 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi and its confirmation judgment and order dated 11.08.2017 in Crl.A.No.14/2016 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, 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. The factual matrix of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 02.08.2011 at about 5.00 p.m., the accused was the driver of the Channabasaveshwara bus bearing Reg.No.KA-20-8366, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner near the garden land of Chaluvaiah, Channammanapalya Road, Hanumapura and dashed the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-05-ES-8973 and also hit the pedestrian who - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17440 CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2017 was coming on the left side of the road, as a result of which, the rider of the motor cycle succumbed to the injuries onthe spot, the pillion rider of the motor cycle sustained grievous injuries and the pedestrian also sustained simple injuries. Thereafter, a complaint came to be registered against the accused. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.92/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. The Trial Court recorded the conviction for the above said offenses. In an appeal, the Appellate Court partly allowed the judgment of the Trial Court and modified the sentence in respect of section 338 and 304(A) of IPC. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this revision petition. 5. Heard Smt. Gayathri M., learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17440 CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2017 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 in recording the conviction against the accused are contrary to the evidence on record and also opposed to the facts and law. 7. It is further submitted that the Courts below have seriously committed error in not taking into consideration the history of the incident furnished before the Medical Officer, General Hospital, Magadi. The Trial Court has not considered the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 properly, in fact, P.Ws.2 and 3 were riding the motor cycle on the wrong side of the road, consequently, the incident had occurred. The Courts below have failed take note that the driver of the bus was not driving the said bus in a rash and negligent manner. In the absence of evidence in respect of rash and negligent act, the impugned judgments ought not to have been passed. Therefore, the same is liable to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17440 CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2017 be set aside. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the revision petition. 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State vehemently justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below and he further justified that the evidence of eye witnesses are consistent in their evidence regarding rash and negligent act of the accused and also the accident. He further submitted that the findings of the Courts below are proper and appropriate, there is no infirmity in the said impugned judgments. As such, he prays to reject the petition. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, it appears from the record that the accused was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle and the pedestrian. As a result of which, the rider of the motor cycle died on the spot and the pillion rider and pedestrian have sustained injuries. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17440 CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2017 10. P.W.1 being a complainant and eye witness to the incident has deposed in his evidence that he had witnessed the accident and in the said accident, the rider of the motor cycle succumbed to the injuries on the spot and the pillion rider and the pedestrian have sustained injuries. As such, he supported the case of the prosecution. However, he did not identify the driver of the bus. 11. P.W.2 being an injured cum independent witness deposed in his evidence that on 02.08.2011, when he was waiting for bus to go to his native place, his friend Jagadish came to the spot on the motor cycle and he took lift in the said motor cycle. According to him, the deceased Jagadish was riding the vehicle and he was a pillion rider. He further deposed that the driver of the said bus came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle, due to which, his friend Jagadish succumbed to the injuries on the spot and he sustained injuries. As such, he supported the case of the prosecution. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17440 CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2017 12. P.W.3 being an independent witness deposed that he was the pedestrian on the date of accident and he further stated that while he was going towards Hanumapura on the left side of the road, the driver of the bus who came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle due to which the accident had occurred. He identified the driver of the bus. 13. P.W.4 being a witness to the mahazar-Ex.P.2 supported the case of the prosecution. 14. P.W.6 was the owner of the offending bus deposed in his evidence that he had received an information regarding the accident of the bus and he went to the police station and got the bus released by executing indemnity bond which is marked as Ex.P.3. The said Ex.P.3 would disclose that he appointed one Sachidananda Murthy as the driver of the offending bus. It is needless to state that Ex.P.3 executed on 04.08.2011 and the accident had occurred on 02.08.2011. 15. Be that as it may, on reading of the evidence of all these witnesses, it appears from the record that, P.Ws. 1 to 3 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17440 CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2017 who are the eye witnesses to the incident are consistent in their evidence that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. P.W.6 has admitted that the accused was driving the bus. The same has been reflected in the document which is marked as Ex.P.3. 16. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are proper and appropriate and there are no infirmities in the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction. 17. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 4