- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17438 CRL.RP No. 1138 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. 1138 OF 2017 BETWEEN: N. ANANDA S/O NARAYANA P., AGED:40 YEARS, R/O. NEAR PRIOYADARSHINI SCHOOL, VINOBANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA-577301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.PRASAD B. S., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA-577301 REP BY ITS INSPECTOR. …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 21.05.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.4289/2013 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.09.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A.NO.148/2015 AND CONVICTING THE PETITIOENR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 OF IPC. 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:17438 CRL.RP No. 1138 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 21.05.2015 in C.C.No.4289/2013 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Shivamogga and its confirmation judgment and order dated 14.09.2017 in Crl.A.No.148/2015 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, 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 22.01.2013 around 6.00 a.m., the accused was riding the Bajaj CT-100 motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed Smt. Basamma who was walking at 60 feet road in front of Jatpat park situated at Vinobhanagar, Shimogga. Consequently, Smt. Basamma sustained injuries and died in the hospital on 31.01.2013. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17438 CRL.RP No. 1138 of 2017 Thereafter, a complaint came to be registered against the accused. The respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.22/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 5 witnesses as PWs.1 to 5 and got marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13. The Trial Court recorded the conviction for the above said offenses. In an appeal, the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this revision petition. 5. Heard Sri. Prasad B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner/accused 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/accused that the concurrent findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction against the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17438 CRL.RP No. 1138 of 2017 accused are contrary to the evidence on record and also opposed to the facts and law. 7. It is further submitted that even though the deceased Basamma had crossed the road without taking proper care and showed her negligence, the same has not been considered by the Trial Court while appreciating the evidence. There are contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and also sketch which is marked as Ex.P.7. 8. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 who is stated to be an eye witness to the incident deposed that he witnessed the accident. However, the suggestions were made to him that he is a planted witness to the incident. The said aspect has not been considered by the Courts below in appreciating the evidence. 9. It is further submitted that had the evidence of P.W.2 had not been considered, the conviction would not have been passed. Failing to appreciate the evidence of P.W.2 properly resulting in passing the impugned judgments which are liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17438 CRL.RP No. 1138 of 2017 the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the 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 interference may not be necessary as there is a proper appreciation has been made by the Courts below in recording the conviction. 11. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 who is an eye witness has to be considered as there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence and the defense has not brought any material contradiction to discredit his evidence. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the revision petition. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, it is appropriate to refer the evidence of the witnesses to determine as to whether or not the findings of the Courts below are proper. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17438 CRL.RP No. 1138 of 2017 13. P.W.1 is stated to be the son of the deceased-Basamma and he was not present at the time of accident and he is not an eye witness to the incident. 14. P.W.2 is stated to be an eye witness to the accident, he deposed in his evidence that the accused had driven the said vehicle in a high speed and dashed the deceased Basamma. Further, he stated that himself and his friends have shifted the injured to the Nanjappa Hospital for treatment and also he also stated that he had informed C.W.1 about the accident. 15. P.W.3 is stated to be the mahazar witness, he deposed that he has affixed his signature to the mahazar in the police station. 16. P.Ws.4 and 5 are the official witnesses stated to have conducted investigation and P.W.5 submitted the charge sheet. 17. Having considered the evidence of all these witnesses, it emerges that except P.W.2, none of the witnesses have witnessed the accident. On reading of the evidence of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17438 CRL.RP No. 1138 of 2017 P.W.2, it would indicate that the accused/petitioner came on his motor cycle with high speed and caused accident. 18. The evidence of P.W.2 did not indicate that the accused had driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In the absence of rash and negligent driving of the scooter, the conviction ought not to have been recorded. It is needless to say that mere driving the vehicle with high speed cannot be construed as rash and negligent driving. 19. My view has been fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 1State of Karnataka Vs. Satish, it is held that driving the vehicle in a high speed is not sufficient to hold that there is a negligence on the part of the driver of the said vehicle. 20. Having considered the evidence of witnesses and also the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be inferred that the prosecution has failed to establish that the petitioner was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident. Therefore, the 1 1998 (8) SCC 493 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17438 CRL.RP No. 1138 of 2017 findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner, cannot be sustained. 21. 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 21.05.2015 passed in C.C.No.4289/2013 by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga and the judgment and order dated 14.09.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.148/2015 by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Shivamogga are set aside. (iii) The petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS/-, List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3