- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7821 CRL.RP No. 100083 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100083 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: R. MURAGESHAN S/O. RAJA, AGED 31 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. KANGANIPATTI, POST. MUTTAMAPATTI, TQ. OMALUR, DIST. SELAM, STATE. TAMIL NADU-796290. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE REP. BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMARPATTANAM POLICE STATION, TQ: RANEBENNUR, THROUGH ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-581104. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 23.07.2015 IN CRL. APPEAL NO.22/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI SITTING AT RANBENNUR AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT AND THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 01.04.2009 IN CC NO.113/2008 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND II ADDL. JMFC, RANEBENNUR, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 AND 304(A) OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE ACCUSED OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7821 CRL.RP No. 100083 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 05.06.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) The accused in C.C. No. 113/2008 and appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2009 has preferred this revision petition challenging the judgment dated 01.04.2009 passed in C.C. No. 113/2008 by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and II Additional JMFC, Ranebennur, and the judgment dated 23.07.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2009 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. KA- 01/C-7333. On 22.10.2007, at about 12:45 p.m., while the accused was within the premises of Grasim Factory, he is alleged to have driven the said lorry in reverse in a rash and negligent manner, thereby causing the death of the co-driver (cleaner), G. Dharmalingam. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7821 CRL.RP No. 100083 of 2020 3. Based on the complaint of PW-1 regarding the alleged incident, the Police registered the FIR, which is marked as Ex.P-1. 4. The charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses and marked 9 exhibits. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, in addition to a fine of Rs.500/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of conviction, the accused preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court, by its judgment dated 23.07.2015, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction recorded by the Trial Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7821 CRL.RP No. 100083 of 2020 6. The present revision petition is filed challenging both the judgments rendered by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. 7. Sri Naganagouda R. Kuppellur, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has remained absent. Considering that the offences pertain to the year 2007 and the revision petition has been pending since 2020, the matter was taken up for consideration with the assistance of the learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri T. Hanumareddy.. 8. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent-State submits that PW-1 and PW-4 are independent witnesses, and both have deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the accused. It is further submitted that had the accused exercised due care and caution, the accident could have been averted. The learned AGA contends that both the Courts below, upon a careful appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7821 CRL.RP No. 100083 of 2020 on record, have rightly recorded the conviction of the accused. 9. PW-1, as per the contents of Ex.P-1, has stated that the deceased was working as a cleaner in the lorry in question. It is further stated that, in order to assist the accused in reversing the lorry, the deceased was standing behind the vehicle. While he was so assisting, the lorry, driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused, dashed against him, resulting in grievous injuries, to which he subsequently succumbed. 10. PW-1, in his oral testimony, has reiterated the contents of Ex.P-1. In cross-examination, he stated that the deceased was standing on the right-hand side of the lorry and was giving instructions to the driver to reverse the vehicle. He further deposed that the lorry, while being reversed, dashed against the deceased. It is also admitted that the accused was reversing the lorry in accordance with the instructions given by the deceased. It is further admitted that the deceased was maintaining a reasonable - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7821 CRL.RP No. 100083 of 2020 distance from the lorry and had sufficient open space to move away from it. PW-1 also stated that the deceased had a clear view of the lorry and adequate space to retreat. He further stated that had the deceased moved away from the path of the lorry, the accident could have been avoided. 11. PW-4 was also examined as an eyewitness to the incident in question. He has stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused, which resulted in the death of the deceased. However, in cross-examination by the defence, PW-4 admitted that the lorry was being reversed by the accused pursuant to the signals or instructions given by the deceased himself. It is further admitted that had the deceased maintained a proper distance from the lorry while it was being reversed, the accident could have been avoided. He also stated that the cleaner was standing very close to the lorry while giving instructions to the driver. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7821 CRL.RP No. 100083 of 2020 12. PW-5, the Investigating Officer, has deposed regarding the course of investigation and the manner in which evidence was collected. He stated that the spot mahazar was conducted as per Ex.P-2, and that spot photographs were taken. The spot sketch has been marked as Ex.P-8. However, though the Investigating Officer claims to have photographed the place of incident, the said photographs have not been produced before the Court. Except for narrating the course of investigation, PW-5 has not deposed any material particulars that would substantively support the case of the prosecution. 13. The case of the prosecution primarily rests on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4. Although both witnesses have stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused, their testimony does not withstand the test of cross-examination. In cross- examination, both PW-1 and PW-4 have categorically admitted that the deceased did not exercise due care. It is further admitted that the deceased was standing very - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7821 CRL.RP No. 100083 of 2020 close to the lorry while instructing the driver to reverse the vehicle. They have also admitted that the location where the lorry was parked was an open area, and the deceased had sufficient space to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle while giving instructions. Significantly, it is further admitted that had the deceased maintained such a distance, the unfortunate incident could have been avoided. 14. The remaining oral and documentary evidence on record does not materially advance the case of the prosecution. 15. The fact that the death of the deceased resulted from the accident involving the lorry in question, and that the said lorry was being driven by the accused at the relevant point of time, is not in dispute. Since the accused has been charged with the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, the only question that remains for consideration before this Court is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7821 CRL.RP No. 100083 of 2020 whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. 16. This Court, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1004/2021, had occasion to consider the legal contours of what constitutes rashness and negligence. In the said judgment, it was held as under: “What amounts to rashness and negligence? Rashness innately implies to recklessness coupled with a state of conscious breach of duty to care where there exists a necessity of care i.e., negligence. Rashness and negligence are multi-faceted concepts which cannot be comprehended and interpreted in isolation, it significantly depends on facts and circumstances of each case.” 17. If the case of the prosecution and the evidence on record are examined in light of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, the only conclusion that can be drawn by this Court is that, although the death - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7821 CRL.RP No. 100083 of 2020 of the deceased occurred in an accident involving the lorry driven by the accused, the said accident cannot be attributed to the rash or negligent act of the accused. On the contrary, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 clearly establishes that the deceased himself was negligent and failed to exercise the degree of care expected of him in the circumstances of the present case. 18. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court, without properly examining the above aspects, have merely placed reliance on the testimony of PW-1 and PW-4 to conclude that the accident and consequent death of the deceased were due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Another factor that appears to have influenced both Courts is the fact that the accused voluntarily surrendered before the police immediately after the incident. However, mere surrender before the police, in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the death was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused, cannot be treated as a determinative factor. The burden - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7821 CRL.RP No. 100083 of 2020 squarely lies on the prosecution to establish all the ingredients of the alleged offences. 19. The further finding recorded by the Courts below that the accident could have been avoided had the driver exercised due diligence and care is without any evidentiary basis. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish that the accused was driving the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, thereby causing the accident and resulting in the death of the deceased. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to discharge this burden. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court is unsustainable in law and on facts, and cannot be upheld. 20. In the light of the above discussion, following: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment in C.C.No.113/2008 dated 01.04.2009 on the file of on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and II Addl. JMFC at - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7821 CRL.RP No. 100083 of 2020 Ranebennur and the judgment in Crl.A.No.22/2009 dated 23.07.2015 on the file of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur) are set aside. (iii) The accused is acquitted of all charged offences. (iv) The bail bond executed by the accused is cancelled and the surety is discharged. (v) The fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused shall be refunded. Registry to return the trial Court records. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE NAA CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2