- 1 - CRL.RP No. 1187 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17THDAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1187 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: H. SANTHOSH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, DRIVER AND AGRICULTURIST, R/AT TALYA VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK-577526, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADV.) AND: STATE BY HOLALKERE POLICE REPRESENTEDC BY SPP, HIGH OCURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. …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 DATED 01.10.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN CRL.A.NO.20/2018 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.03.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HOLALKERE IN C.C.NO.241/2018. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 11.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT,MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 2 - CRL.RP No. 1187 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CAV ORDER The accused/revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 09th March, 2018 passed in Criminal Case No.241 of 2018 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Holalkere (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') which is confirmed by the judgment dated 01st October, 2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2018 by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (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, Holalkere Police have filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code read with Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act,1988. 4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 20th December, 2012 at about 5.00 pm. within the limits of Holalkere Police Station between Ghattihosahalli- - 3 - CRL.RP No. 1187 of 2018 Kumminaghatta village, in front of land of Gowdara Shivanna, the accused driving the mini vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-16/B- 2064 from Talya towards Kumminaghatta in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to Rudramma w/o Thimmappa who was coming along with Prashanth and Rangaswamy from the opposite side and thereby caused the accident. As a result, the said Rudrammafell and sustained grievous injuries on her head, forehead and other parts of the body and was admitted to the hospital for treatment and she died on 14th January, 2013 at about 8.00 p.m. in the District Hospital, Chitradurga. Immediately after the accident, the accused fled the scene without informing about the incident to the nearest police station 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.241 of 2018 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 - CRL.RP No. 1187 of 2018 6. To prove the guilt of the accused, out of 19 witnesses cited, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and twelve documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P12. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement 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 Section 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code. The accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in - 5 - CRL.RP No. 1187 of 2018 default of payment of the fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused preferred appeal before the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2018 and the same came to be dismissed on 01st October, 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 both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective. The accusation leveled against the accused is that the accident took place on 20th December 2012 and the injured died on 15th January, 2013, i.e., even after the accident, for about 26 days, the injured was alive. The wound certificate and the case sheet pertaining to deceased are not produced by the prosecution to prove the fact that there is nexus between death of the deceased and this accident. 9. He would further submit that the investigating officer has not issued notice under Section 133 of the Motor - 6 - CRL.RP No. 1187 of 2018 Vehicles Act to ascertain as to who was the driver of the offending vehicle at relevant point of time, which is mandatory. He has also not explained properly about the occurrence of accident. One of the eye-witness to the incident i.e. PW.5, who is none other than the son of deceased, has clearly deposed that the accident occurred due to fault of his mother. Further, the Trial Court has not considered the admission made by the son i.e. PW.5. 10. During the course of cross-examination of PW.5, he has clearly admitted that at the time of accident, PW.1- Prashanth was in Bengaluru and after occurrence of accident, he called him over phone and then only PW.1 came to the spot. Further, he admitted that they were unable to bring medicines as per the advice of the doctor and because of non-providing of medicine on time, his mother died. This admission made by PW.5 clearly goes to show that PW.1 was not present at the time of accident. Based upon the said admission, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the alleged offence which is not sustainable under law. On all these grounds, he sought to allow this revision petition. - 7 - CRL.RP No. 1187 of 2018 11. 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 on sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court and sought to dismiss this revision petition. 12. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of records, the following point would arise for my consideration: (i) Whether the judgment of conviction and order in sentence passed by the trial Court which is affirmed by the appellate Court is perverse, capricious and suffer from legal infirmities? 13 I have examined the materials placed before me. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20th December, 2012 at about 5.00 pm,in Ghattihosahalli-Kumminaghatta village, in front of land of GowdaraShivanna, the accused drove the school mini vehicle from Talya towards Kumminaghatta in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to Rudramma who was going along with Prashanth and Rangaswamy. Resultantly, - 8 - CRL.RP No. 1187 of 2018 Rudramma fell down and sustained grievous injuries on her head, forehead and other parts of the body and was admitted to the hospital for treatment and she died on 14th January, 2013 at about 8.00 pm in the District Hospital, Chitradurga. Immediately after the accident without informing to the nearest police station regarding the accident the accused fled the scene and thereby committed the alleged offences. 14. To prove the guilt of the accused, eleven witnesses have been examined as PWs1 to 11 and twelve documents are marked as Exhibits P1 to P12. The genesis of the case arise from Exhibit P1-complaint filed by PW1-K Prashant. It is alleged in the complaint that on 20th December 2012 at about 5.00 pm, while the complainant was walking with his maternal aunt Rudramma and her son near the land of Gowdra Shivanna, at that time, a School Mini vehicle being driven in a high speed and in rash and negligent manner hit Rudramma. As a result, she sustained injuries to her head and all over the body. He does not know the name and address of the driver of the vehicle as the driver fled the scene immediately after the accident. Then he shifted the injured to general Hospital Holalkere through 108 Ambulance and thereafter shifted to Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere for further treatment. The alleged - 9 - CRL.RP No. 1187 of 2018 accident took place in the afternoon of 20th December, 2012. The complaint came to be filed on 21st December, 2012 at 12 noon. On the basis of the complaint, case was registered in Crime No.562 of 2012 against the unknown driver of the Mini vehicle and First Information Report was submitted to the Court on 22ndDecember, 2012 at 10:35 am. It is stated in the complaint that since the complainant has admitted his maternal aunt Rudramma to Bapuji Hospital at Davanagere, he could not file the complaint immediately after the accident. 15. The material witness PW1-Prashant has deposed in his evidence as to what is averred in the complaint-Exhibit P1. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, he has clearly admitted that on the very next day after the accident, he came to know that one Santosh was the driver of the offending vehicle. When PW1 came to know the name and address of the accused on the very next day of the accident, he could have mentioned the same in the complaint which was filed on 21st December, 2012. However, PW1 has not disclosed the name and address of the accused. 16. When the Investigating officer registered the case against the accused for the offence, it is the duty of the - 10 - CRL.RP No. 1187 of 2018 investigating officer to issue notice under Section 133 of Act to the owner of the vehicle to ascertain the name of the driver and about the driving licence particulars as on the date of accident. But the Investigating officer has not deposed anything as to non-issuance of notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act. However, he has deposed in his evidence that he has recorded the further statement of CW1 on 21st December 2012. PW1 has not deposed anything as to the further statement said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. The another eye-witness PW5-Rangaswamy, who is the son of the deceased Rudramma has deposed in his evidence that about two years back one day at about 6.00 pm he and his mother were walking near the land of Gowdra Shivanna, and at that time a School Mini vehicle came in a rash, high speed and negligent manner and hit his mother, as a result, his mother sustained injuries on her head. Then he shifted her to the hospital. However, he has clearly deposed in his examination-in-chief that the accident took place due to the fault of his mother. This witness is treated as partly hostile witness with the permission of the court and was elaborately cross-examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. - 11 - CRL.RP No. 1187 of 2018 Even in his cross-examination, he has admitted that the offending vehicle was coming in a slow pace. Further, he has admitted that after the accident, he called PW1-Prashant over phone. Further, he has admitted that since they were unable to bring medicines as per the advice of the doctor, his mother died in the hospital. 18. PW6 another eye witness, has not supported the case of prosecution. Even in his cross-examination, he has categorically denied the statement said to have been recorded by the Investigating officer under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is marked as Exhibit P7. 19. On careful examination of the evidence of material witness-PW5, who is the son of the deceased, it is crystal clear that the complainant was not an eye-witness to the accident. PW1 was not present at the time of accident and he was in Bangalore and after the accident, PW5 called him over phone and informed him about the incident. This evidence of PW5 clearly goes to show that only after the arrival of PW1 from Bengaluru on the next day, he has lodged complaint to police. Though PW1 was not an eye-witness and was not present at the scene of accident, the Investigating Officer has shown him - 12 - CRL.RP No. 1187 of 2018 as complainant and eye-witness. This fact is falsified by one of the material eye-witness-PW5 who is the son of the deceased. Hence, the testimony of PW1 cannot be accepted and only on the basis of the testimony of PW1 who was not present at the time of accident the trial Court has convicted the accused, which is not sustainable under law. 20. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner would submit that there is no nexus between the death of deceased and the accident. The accident took place on 20th December, 2012 and the injured died on 14th January, 2013, that means injured was alive for about 26 days after the accident. However, the investigating officer has not collected the wound certificate and the case-sheet of the injured from the concerned Hospital. The investigating officer has also not whispered anything as to non-collection of the said documents or has explained anything as to non-production of these material pieces of evidence to show that the deceased died due to accidental injuries. 21. Viewed from any angle, absolutely there is no legal evidence before the Court to prove the guilt of the accused. However, both the courts, without properly appreciating the - 13 - CRL.RP No. 1187 of 2018 facts and the evidence on record, have convicted the accused which is not sustainable in law. For the reasons aforestated, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court is perverse and suffers from legal infirmities. Accordingly, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative. 22. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Revision petition is allowed; ii) Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence dated 09th March, 2018 passed in CC No.241 of 2018 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Holalkere which is confirmed by the judgment dated 01st October, 2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2018 by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, are set aside; iii) Accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; - 14 - CRL.RP No. 1187 of 2018 iv) Fine amount deposited by the accused shall be refunded to him; v) Registry to send the trial court records along with the copy of this Order to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn