- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27194 CRL.RP No. 1214 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1214 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. NAGARAJ S/O RANGANATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT VENKATESHWARA HATCH, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, PIN - 62. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SANJEEVINI V.H. ADV. FOR SRI. G JAIRAJ, ADV.) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PSI, KOLAR RURAL POLICE STATION, KOLAR-563101 REP. BY SPP. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND A.C.J.M AT KOLAR IN C.C.NO.654/2013, BY ITS ORDER DATED 25.10.2016 AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27194 CRL.RP No. 1214 of 2018 SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR IN CRL.APPEAL.NO.33/2016, BY ITS ORDER DATED 10.08.2018, AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER The accused/revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 25th October, 2016 passed in CC.No.654 of 2013 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & ACJM, Kolar (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') which is confirmed by the judgment dated 10th August, 2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2016 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate Court'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Facts leading to this revision petition are, Kolar Rural Police have filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27194 CRL.RP No. 1214 of 2018 4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 29th March, 2013 at about 5.30 a.m., in the early morning, near Veerappa Gate on Kolar-Srinivasapur Road, the accused being the driver of EICHER Tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-03/D-8458, in which CW.2 Narasimha Swamy and deceased Bettegowda were the inmates, drove the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-34/A-864 on its hind portion, which was parked by the side of the road by CW3-M Shiva and thereby Bettegowda who was the inmate of the Eicher Tempo died at the spot and CW.2 sustained grievous injuries and thereby committed the alleged offences. 5. After filing charge-sheet, the jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The case was registered in CC.No.654 of 2013 and in response to summons, accused appeared before the Trial Court and enlarged on bail. The substance of plea was recorded, having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27194 CRL.RP No. 1214 of 2018 6. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses as PWs1 to 11 and thirteen documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P13. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, the accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. 7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days; and further, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of Indian Penal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27194 CRL.RP No. 1214 of 2018 Code, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused preferred appeal before the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolar in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2016 and the same came to be dismissed on 10th August, 2018. Being aggrieved by the judgments of the Courts, the accused has preferred this revision petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the judgments of both Courts are not sustainable under law. None of the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of prosecution. However, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the alleged offences on the basis of principle 'res ipsa loquitur' which is not sustainable under law. On all these grounds, he sought to allow this revision petition. 9. As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader Smt. N Anitha Girish, would submit that, both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27194 CRL.RP No. 1214 of 2018 on sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court and accordingly, sought to dismiss this revision petition. 10. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of records, the following point would arise for my consideration: "Whether the judgment and order of the Tribunal is perverse, capricious and suffers from legal infirmities?" 11. I have examined the materials placed before me. The investigating officer has cited fifteen witnesses in the charge-sheet and out of them, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses as per PWs1 to 7 and marked thirteen documents as Exhibits P1 to 13. 12. CW1-Bettegowda, said to be the complainant who is not the eye-witness, is examined as PW1. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Public prosecutor treated him as partly hostile witness with the permission of the court and during his cross-examination also, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27194 CRL.RP No. 1214 of 2018 he has not supported the case of the prosecution. However, he has admitted that only after receiving the information as to the accident through Mohan the son of his elder brother, he has lodged complaint with the police. 13. CW3-Shiva M said to be the eye-witness examined as PW2 has also not supported the case of prosecution. Even in cross-examination made by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, he has categorically denied as to the statement recorded by the Police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is marked as Exhibit P3. 14. CW9-K Nagaraja, owner of Lorry has deposed in his evidence as to release of Bus after execution of indemnity bond. He has not deposited anything as to the accused. He has also not fully supported the case of prosecution. 15. CW11-M Venugopal Reddy examined as PW4, has deposed as to the examination of the vehicle and issuance of Motor Vehicle report as per Exhibit P9. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27194 CRL.RP No. 1214 of 2018 16. PW5-N. Narayanaswamy, Assistant Sub-Inspector and PW6-Sudhakar A B, Circle Inspector of Police, have deposed as to their respective investigation. 17. PW7-Narasimha Swamy, Loader has deposed in his evidence that he was working as Loader and Unloader. Bettegowda was the Cleaner. The accused was Driver in the said Company. At about three years back he came to Janaghatta at Srinivasapura to load chicken feed and unloaded it at the designated place and while returning, the lorry was moving from Srinivasapura to Kolar side and after crossing Janaghatta, another lorry came in reverse direction and dashed to their vehicle. Further, he has deposed that in the accident, he has sustained injuries to his nose, leg and has lost his left eye and Cleaner Bettegowda died in the accident. This witness is also treated as partly hostile witness with the permission of the Court and was cross-examined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. During his cross-examination, he has categorically denied the statement said to have been recorded by the Police under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure marked as exhibit P13. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27194 CRL.RP No. 1214 of 2018 18. Though the material witnesses, injured-PWs1 and 2, have not supported the case of the prosecution, on the principle of res-ipsa loquitur following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAVIKAPOOR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in 2012(9) SCC 284, the trial Court has convicted the accused. 19. In a given case, even not doing what one was ought to do, can constitute negligence. In the case on hand, as already discussed above, the material witnesses PWs1 and 2 have not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has not elicited any favourable answers from them even after considering them as hostile witnesses. 20. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SYAD AKBAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 1979 Cri.L.J. 1374, which is proceeded on the basis that doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would stricto sensu not apply to a criminal case, as its applicability in an action for injury by negligence is well known. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme opined thus: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27194 CRL.RP No. 1214 of 2018 “29. Such simplified and pragmatic application of the notion of res ipsa loquitur, as a part of the general mode of inferring a fact in issue from another circumstantial fact is subject to all the principles, the satisfaction of which is essential before an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone. These are: Firstly, all the circumstances, including the objective circumstances constituting the accident, from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, must be firmly established. Secondly, those circumstances must be of a determinative tendency pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. Thirdly, the circumstances should make a chain so complete that they cannot reasonably raise any other hypothesis save that of the accused's guilt. That is to say, they should be incompatible with his innocence, and inferentially exclude all reasonable doubt about his guilt.” 21. Further, in the said judgment at paragraph 10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: "10. In case of circumstantial evidence, there is a risk of jumping to conclusions in haste. While evaluating such evidence the jury should bear in mind that inference of guilt should be the only reasonable inference from the facts. In the present case however, the conviction of the accused persons seems wholly unjustified against the weight of the evidence adduced." - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27194 CRL.RP No. 1214 of 2018 22. The same principle has been followed Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NANJUNDAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2022 LIVELAW (5) 489 it is observed that when the prosecution failed to place any legal and acceptable evidence, the court cannot convict the accused on the basis of doctrine of res ipsa loquitur or on the basis of presumptions, assumptions and surmises. 23. In the case on hand, both the Courts have not properly appreciated evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and convicted the accused, which is perverse, illegal and not sustainable under law. Hence I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative. 24. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Criminal revision petition is allowed; ii) Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 25th October, 2017 passed in CC No.654 of 2013 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & ACJM, Kolar which is confirmed by II Additional - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27194 CRL.RP No. 1214 of 2018 Sessions Judge at Kolar, in Criminal appeal No.33 of 2016 dated 10th August 2018, are set aside; iii) Accused is acquitted of the offences under Section, 279, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code; iv) Fine amount paid by the accused be refunded to him; v) Registry to send the trial court records along with copy of this order to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE SSD/lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31