- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15059 CRL.RP No. 1507 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1507 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SRI NAGARAJA S/O YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT THAGGIHALLI VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK – 577 217. DAVANAGERE DIST. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HONNALI POLICE STATION DAVANAGERE DIST – 577 217. REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING 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 23.08.2016 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN CRL.A.NO.124/2014, THEREBY ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 16.10.2014 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HONNALI IN C.C.NO.510/2009. Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15059 CRL.RP No. 1507 of 2016 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 18.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 16.10.2014 in C.C.No.510/2009 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Honnali and its confirmation judgment and order dated 23.08.2016 in Crl.A.No.124/2014 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, 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. Brief facts of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused being the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 16-K-4298 was driving the said vehicle on 07-07-2019 at about 11.00 p.m. on Honnali - Shivamogga public road with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the pedestrians and caused injuries. In the said - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15059 CRL.RP No. 1507 of 2016 accident, Prahlad succumbed to the said injuries at Kasturba Hospital, Mangalore, on 14.07.2009. However, CW.5 – Beerappa had sustained grievous injuries. After obtaining treatment, he survived. It is also stated that the accused was not having valid license and he was riding the said vehicle in a triple riding manner. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered against the accused in Crime No.222/2009 of Honnali police station. The jurisdictional police after conducting investigation, submitted the charge sheet for the offenses under Sections 279, 338, 304A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 r/w 181, Section 94(1) r/w Sections 177 and 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘IMV Act’). 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15059 CRL.RP No. 1507 of 2016 approached this Court by way of filing this revision petition. 5. Heard Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court are contrary to the evidence on record and also opposed to the facts and law. 7. It is further submitted that the Courts have wrongly appreciated the facts that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt when the evidence of all the witnesses did not disclose about the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the accused. The Courts below have failed to appreciate the independent eyewitness namely Sri Bandejar. The said Bandejar has not been examined in order to prove the case. The Courts below have appreciated the case without considering the relevant evidence and passed the impugned judgments which are required to be set aside. Making such - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15059 CRL.RP No. 1507 of 2016 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 substantiated and justified the judgment of conviction and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court and he further submitted that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have appreciated and re-appreciated the evidence of all the witnesses and also applied the proper law on the case on hand and passed the judgments which are proper and relevant. Hence, interference may not be required. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the revision petition. 9. Having heard the 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 petitioner being the driver was driving the said vehicle/motorcycle and caused accident, as a result of which, a pedestrian had sustained injuries and one of the pedestrians succumbed in the said accident. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15059 CRL.RP No. 1507 of 2016 10. Be that as it may, having considered the jurisdiction of the Revisional Court, it is appropriate to have a cursory look upon the evidence of all the witnesses. 11. PW.1 stated to be the complainant. However, he stated that he had not filed any complaint. Moreover, he admitted the fact that the accident had occurred near Didagur bus stand. The prosecution treated him as hostile and conducted cross-examination. In the cross- examination, he admitted that, himself and others namely Manju, Prahlad and Beerappa were going on the roadside. In the meantime, the accused had dashed his friends by driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and caused accident. He further admitted that, he admitted the injured to the hospital and also he took one of the injured to McGann Hospital, Shivamogga. Further, he admitted that, as per Ex.P1, he lodged a complaint. Further, he stated that the motorcycle came with high speed and caused accident. On reading the evidence of PW.1, in the cross-examination, he did not say the motorcycle came in a rash and negligent manner, except it came in a high speed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15059 CRL.RP No. 1507 of 2016 12. PW.2 stated to be the witness to the Spot Panchanama, which is marked as Ex.P7. He supported the case. 13. PW.3 is another witness who has turned hostile in respect of the Spot Panchanama as per Ex.P7. 14. PW. 4, who stated to be one of the pedestrians, he stated that he has not sustained any injury. However, he had witnessed the accident and he further admitted that the accident occurred in the night and he did not identify the accused. 15. PW.5, one of the pedestrians, he was the injured in the said accident. However, he did not identify the driver of the motorcycle. 16. PW.6 also one of the eyewitnesses to the incident. However, he turned hostile and not supported the case. 17. The remaining witnesses are the police officials and they have supported the case of the prosecution. 18. On overall reading of the evidence of all the witnesses, it appears from the record that, though PW.8, who was working as Circle Inspector, had stated in his evidence that he had written a letter to the RTO, Davanagere, to get information regarding the vehicle, the same has not - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15059 CRL.RP No. 1507 of 2016 been produced before the Court. There is ambiguity in respect of the rider of the motorcycle. Though, one of the witnesses has stated that he identified the driver of the motorcycle, another witness who was standing in the same footing and had sustained injuries in the said accident, had deposed that he did not identify the rider of the motorcycle. Such being the fact, the Trial Court should have extended the benefit of doubt. However, the Trial Court opined that the petitioner was riding the motorcycle and caused accident, which is erroneous and the same cannot be sustained. Therefore, this Court being a Revisional Court, when the Courts below have committed an error in rendering the judgments, it is necessary to interfere with the said findings in order to secure the ends of justice. Hence, interference with the said findings is justified. The findings of the Courts below in rendering the conviction are liable to be set aside. 19. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15059 CRL.RP No. 1507 of 2016 (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 16.10.2014 passed in C.C.No.510/2009 by the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Honnali and the judgment and order dated 23.08.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.124/2014 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere are set aside. (iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 r/w 181 and Section 94(1) r/w Sections 177 and 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1