- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28474 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.336 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MANJUNATH S/O B N KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC HELPER AT GARMENTS R/O CHANDRAPPA CIRCLE MAGADI TALUKA BENGALURU - 562 120 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R B DESHPANDE.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KADUR POLICE STATION, KADUR CIRCLE CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 548 (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. .,ADVOCATE) CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28474 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2021 HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 19.10.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KADUR IN C.C.NO.1144/2013 MODIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.12.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.233/2019 (CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279, 337, 338 AND 304A OF IPC) AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM. 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 has preferred this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 19th October, 2019 passed in CC No.1144 of 2013 by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC at Kadur (for short “the trial Court”), which came to be partly allowed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru (for short “the appellate Court”), in Criminal Appeal No.233 of 2019 dated 16th December, 2020, confirming the judgment of conviction for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, by setting aside the sentence passed under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28474 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2021 2. Facts leading to this revision petition are that it is alleged by the prosecution that on 09th August, 2010 at 6:10 pm near Kothari Saw Mill on National Highway-206, the son of CW6-Nehal was proceeding on unregistered Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle along with his friend, CW10-Anuroop Dev. At that time, one Nano car bearing registration number KA-41/P-8113 driven by the accused in rash and negligent manner endangering human life, dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, CW10 sustained simple and grave injuries and Nehal, the rider of motorcycle also received severe injuries on his head, left hand, and the injured were immediately shifted to hospital, wherein while taking treatment, the said Nehal succumbed to the injuries. Thus, accused committed offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. After filing charge-sheet, case was registered against the accused in CC No.1144 of 2013. In response to summons, accused appeared before the trial Court and has enlarged on bail. Substance of plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to substantiate the case, prosecution examined eight witnesses as per PWs1 to 8 and got marked sixteen documents as Exhibits P1 to P16. On closure of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28474 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2021 prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence appearing against him, but has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code and passed the sentence. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, accused preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.233 of 2019 before the appellate Court. The same came to be partly allowed. The sentence against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC was set aside and conviction for offence under Sections 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code was confirmed. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgments, accused has preferred this revision petition. 3. Sri Umesh P.B., learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the accident took place on 09th August, 2013 at about 6:45 pm but the complaint was lodged on 10th August, 2015 at 8.00 pm. There is a delay in filing the complaint and same is not explained by the prosecution. PWs1, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28474 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2021 4, 7 and 8 have not supported the case of the prosecution. The sketch drawn by the police has not been marked. Police have not seized the vehicle on spot but conducted seizure mahazar before the police station on the next day. During the course of cross-examination, PWs2 and 3 have admitted that there are road-humps at both sides of the place of accident. Therefore, it is not possible to drive the vehicle in a high speed. The speed of the Nano car is limited. Investigating officer has not collected the driving license of the Rider of motorcycle. Admittedly, motorcycle was a new vehicle and was not registered. The accident took place due to sole negligence on part of the rider of motorcycle who was not having driving license. The Investigating officer has not whispered anything as to the driving license of the rider of motorcycle and absolutely there is no evidence as to the rash and negligent act of the accused. Both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. On all these grounds, the learned Counsel sought to allow the revision petition. 4. On the other hand, Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28474 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2021 support the judgment of conviction and order in sentence passed by the trial Court, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court and submits that the same do not call for interference in this revision petition and accordingly, sought for dismissal of revision petition. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, the point that would arise for my consideration is, Whether the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court needs to be interfered with in this revision petition? 6. I have examined the materials placed before me. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09th August, 2010, near Kothari Saw Mill on National Highway-206, while the deceased was proceeding on motorcycle along with pillion rider, a Tata Nano car came in high speed and dashed the motorcycle. As a result, both the rider and pillion rider fell and sustained injuries. Thereafter, they were shifted to hospital wherein Nehal succumbed to the injuries while taking treatment. Thus, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28474 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2021 accused committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. 7. In the charge-sheet, Investigating officer has cited twenty witnesses. Out of them K.B. Chandrashekhara is the complainant. CWs10 to 13 are shown as eye-witnesses. CW13 is reported to be dead. Material witnesses CW1-K.B. Chandrashekhara; CW10-Anuroop Dev, who was the pillion rider; CW11-Jayadeva and CW12-Hemant Kumar, were examined as PWs2, 3, 8 and 4 respectively. 8. CW3-Venkatesh and CW12-Erappa are said to be attesters to mahazar, examined as PW1 and PW7 respectively, have not supported the case of prosecution. 9. Another eye-witness PW4-Hemant Kumar, has also not supported the case of prosecution. Even during the course of cross-examination made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor after treating him as hostile witness, he has categorically denied the statement said to have been recorded by Investigating officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is marked as Exhibit P10. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28474 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2021 10. The remaining material witnesses PWs2 and 3 have deposed in their evidence that when the deceased-Nehal and Anuroop Dev were proceeding on unregistered motorcycle, the accused being the driver of car came in a high speed and dashed the motorcycle. As a result, both the rider and the pillion rider fell and sustained injuries; and they were shifted to the hospital where while taking treatment, Nehal, the rider, succumbed to the injuries at 9:30 pm. Thereafter, he lodged the complaint with the police. 11. PW2-Anuroop Dev has not deposed as to the delay in filing the complaint. The Investigating officer also has not explained anything as to delay in filing the complaint. Both PWs2 and 3 have not deposed as to the rash and negligent act on part of the driver of the car. Both the witnesses have clearly admitted in their cross-examination that there are road-humps on either sides of the road where accident took place. Further, they have admitted that the vehicles were moving slow because of road-humps. Further, PW3 has admitted that the place of accident is always a busy road. Admittedly, the police have not visited the spot soon after the accident. Only on the next day, the Investigating officer has visited the spot and conducted - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28474 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2021 mahazar. Even in the mahazar, the Investigating Officer has not shown the existence of road-humps near the place of accident. The rough sketch is also produced, the same is not marked by the prosecution. Even in the rough sketch, the Investigating officer has not shown the existence of road-hump. The Investigating officer has not explained anything in this regard. It is also admitted by the prosecution that at the time of mahazar, vehicles were not on the place of accident and were already shifted to the premises of Police Station. Investigating officer has seized the same in front of the Police Station under seizure mahazar. Therefore, the delay in filing the complaint, drawing-up of mahazar and seizure mahazar will create doubt as to the case of the prosecution. Apart from this, the Investigating officer has not explained anything as to non- collection of driving license of the rider of the motorcycle. The Investigating officer has not whispered anything in this regard. The inquest mahazar Exhibit P11 reveals the name of the deceased as Nehal and Exhibit P12-post-mortem report reveals that he was aged 18 years. But the exact date of birth of the deceased is not disclosed by the prosecution. The school certificate or SSLC marks card of deceased-Nehal is also not - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28474 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2021 produced by the prosecution. It appears that deceased was a minor. Therefore, the investigating officer has not collected any information as to the driving license of the rider of motorcycle. In that view of the matter, it is to be inferred that the rider of the motorcycle must have been below 18 years as on the date of accident as he was studying in second year PUC. A careful consideration of the entire evidence placed before me, reveals that the Investigating officer, instead of collecting the material evidence, has mechanically submitted the charge-sheet which is not sustainable under law. Both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Hence, the point arose for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 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 19th October, 2019 passed in CC No.1144 of 2013 by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC at Kadur, which is partly allowed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru in Criminal - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28474 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2021 Appeal No.233 of 2019 dated 16th December, 2020, confirming the judgment of conviction for offence, are set aside; iii) Accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code; iv) Fine amount, if any 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 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39