- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5411 CRL.RP No. 200087 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200087 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: HANUMESH S/O SHIVANAPPA AGE.25 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE R/O HEMBERAL VILLAGE TQ AND DIST.RAICHUR-584 134 …PETITIONER (BY M/S AMBIKA S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH TRAFFIC POLICE STATION RAICHUR-584 101, REPRESENTED BY THE SPP HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5411 CRL.RP No. 200087 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS OF COURTS BELOW AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 27.03.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR, IN C.C.NO.213/2015 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.11.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL.DIST. AND SESSIONS AT RAICHUR, IN CRL.APPEAL NO.27/2018 BY ALLOWING THE REV.PETITION, IN THE ENDS OF EQUITY. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 07.04.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5411 CRL.RP No. 200087 of 2020 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.03.2018 as against the concurrent findings for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1), 181, 187 and Section 5 read with Sections 180, 146, read with Section 196 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The ranks of the parties before the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience. Factual matrix of the case: 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.04.2015 at about 2.00 P.M within the jurisdiction of respondent – Police on Raichur – Lingasagur main road near the house of Deputy Commissioner, the accused No.1 being a rider of Honda Dream Yuga motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-36-EC-7056 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from Askihal side towards Basaveshwara Circle and dashed against the deceased Mabubee who was going to the bus stand to go to her native place. Due to the impact, she sustained grievous injuries and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5411 CRL.RP No. 200087 of 2020 thereafter she was taken to RIMS Hospital, Raichur and thereafter to VIMS Hospital, Ballari. However, she succumbed to the injuries on 03.05.2015 at about 9.20 P.M. 4. Based on the complaint P.W.7 registered a case against the accused in Crime No.27/2018 and conducted investigation and submitted charge-sheet. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and got marked 10 documents and also identified M.O.1. The Trial Court after recording the oral and documentary evidence and recorded conviction to the accused. The accused being aggrieved by the same approached the Appellate Court by way of filing appeal. However, the said appeal has been dismissed. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the concurrent findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction is erroneous and not proper. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 7. It is further submitted that P.W.1 lodged a complaint regarding incident who is a son of the deceased after - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5411 CRL.RP No. 200087 of 2020 lapse of five days from the date of the incident. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 ought not to have been considered by the Trial Court and Appellate Court for the reason that they are the interested witnesses. 8. It is further submitted P.W.6 who is the independent witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. When the eye-witness not supported the case of the prosecution, proving the act of negligence would be very difficult. Such being the fact, recording the conviction in respect of the offences stated supra would be unreasonable and inappropriate. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 9. Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader, vehemently, justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction submitted that even though P.W.6 who is the eye-witness to the incident has turned hostile, the fact remains that, other witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, the conviction of the accused is proper and appropriate. Therefore, it is not necessary to interfere with the said findings. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5411 CRL.RP No. 200087 of 2020 10. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties it appears from the record that P.W.1 and 2 are the witnesses. P.W.1 is the son of deceased Mabubee. P.W.2 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. P.W.3 is the husband of deceased who are all hearsay witnesses. They had no knowledge as to whether the accused has contended any negligence or not in respect of alleged accident. P.W.4 stated to be the witness to spot and seizure panchanama has turned hostile. P.W.5 was working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Traffic Police Station, he has stated to have conducted inquest panchanama as per Ex-P.2. P.W.6 is stated to be the eye- witness to the incident, he has also turned hostile. P.W.7 was working as Head Constable of the said Police Station conducted part of the investigation. P.W.8 is stated to be the eye-witness. However, he has turned hostile. 11. P.W.9 was working as Police Inspector and conducted investigation and handed over further investigation to C.W.17. The said C.W.17 has been examined as P.W.11, he completed investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. P.W.10 was working as Professor at VIMS Hospital, Ballari, conducted post mortem of the deceased. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5411 CRL.RP No. 200087 of 2020 12. Having analyzed the evidence of all the witnesses, it is relevant to note that P.W.6 is stated to be the eye-witness to the incident. However, he has turned hostile, except him, none of the witnesses are aware about the accident. Such being the fact, it would be very difficult to prove the negligence of the driver of the motorcycle. The negligence might have happened either by the deceased or by the rider of the motor cycle. When there is ambiguity in respect of fixing the liability of negligence, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused. However, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court ignored in extending such benefit resulting in passing the impugned findings. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. ii. The Judgment and Order dated 27.03.2018 passed in CC.No.213/2015 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raichur and the Judgment and Order dated 04.11.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5411 CRL.RP No. 200087 of 2020 No.27/2018 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, is hereby, set aside. iii. The accused is acquitted for the offences stated supra. iv. The bail bonds executed, if any, stands cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1