- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2094 CRL.RP No. 100128 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100128 OF 2018 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PRAVEEN BASAVARAJ MAMDAPUR AGE:31 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O. MARUTI NAGAR, KUDACHI ROAD, BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK. A. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH SANKESHWAR POLICE STATION, R/BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE ) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.12.2017 PASSED BY THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT CHIKKODI IN CRL.A.NO.154/2015 CONIRMING JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 18.09.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, SANKESHWAR IN C.C.NO.496/2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 & 304(A) OF IPC AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE ORDER THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2094 CRL.RP No. 100128 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) Revision petition is directed against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.09.2015 passed in CC No.496/2013 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sankeshwar, confirmed in Crl.A No.154/2015 vide judgement dated 26.12.2017 by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, (sitting at Chikodi). 2. The parties to this revision petition are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The brief relevant facts as set out in the FIR are as under: That the accused was charge sheeted by the Circle Inspector of Hukkeri for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. It is a case of the prosecution that on 05.05.2013 at 4:45 PM, the accused being the driver of a Car bearing registration No.KA-22/P- - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2094 CRL.RP No. 100128 of 2018 9992 coming from Belagavi towards Nipani was driving the said vehicle in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, when he came near Sollapur village within the jurisdiction of Sankeshwar Police Station, endangering human life dashed to deceased Santaram Jyoteppa Malagi who was standing by the side of the road and because of that impact he sustained grievous injuries on his head, feet and other parts of the body. He was shifted to the Hospital for treatment but, died in the Hospital because of accidental injuries. With regard to this accident, crime was registered at Sankeshwar Police Station under Crime No.176/2013 and the criminal law was set in motion. The Investigation Officer on completion of the investigation, filed a chargesheet, during the crime stage itself the accused was enlarged on bail. After filing the chargesheet, the jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and copies of the Police papers were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court recorded a plea against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2094 CRL.RP No. 100128 of 2018 and 304A of IPC read over and explain the same to the accused in Kannada in the language known to him. He pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. 4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined 11 witnesses as PW.1 to 11 and got marked 12 documents at Ex.P.1 to 12 and closed prosecution evidence. Thereafter, accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C so as to enable him to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. He denied his complicity in the crime and did not chose to lead any defence evidence. 5. The learned trial Court on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, found the accused guilty of committing the offence under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and sentenced him as under: “The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Sec.279 of Indian Penal Code. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2094 CRL.RP No. 100128 of 2018 The accused shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also pay fine of Rs.2,500/- for the offence punishable under Sec.304A of Indian Penal Code. In default to pay the fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month. The substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.” 6. The judgement of a conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court was challenged by the accused before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi [sitting at Chikodi] by preferring Criminal Appeal No.154/2017. The First Appellate Court on hearing the arguments and on re-appreciation of the evidence, confirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. 7. It is how, now the accused is before this Court challenging the impugned judgements of the Courts below. 8. The learned counsel for the accused Sri.Ashok A. Naik submits that both the Courts below have - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2094 CRL.RP No. 100128 of 2018 committed illegality in appreciating the evidence. He would submit that without properly appreciating the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, the Courts below have wrongly convicted and sentenced the accused. He would submit that when the deceased was standing on the road itself as it is a highway, he tried to cross the road as the road is meant for driving the vehicles in a high speed so, no rash and negligence can be attributed against the accused. Where he was approaching the main road, it was a duty of the deceased to see on either side of the road. There appears no signals on the road, merely because the accused was driving the said offending Car in a high speed is not the criteria to attribute the rash and negligence on the part of the accused. In support of his submission, Sri.Ashok A. Naik, the learned counsel for the appellant took me to the various evidence placed on record by the prosecution and so also the findings of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court in coming to a wrong conclusion according to him and in convicting the accused. He prays that in view of the grounds urged in this revision petition - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2094 CRL.RP No. 100128 of 2018 as well as the lacuna in the case of the prosecution with regard to the proof of offence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Thereby this revision petition is to be allowed accordingly. 9. Sri.T. Hanumareddy, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that both the Courts below have rightly held that the accused guilty of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. No doubt, it is a highway meant to drive the vehicle in a high speed, but it is a duty of the drivers of the vehicle to take all available precautions to drive the vehicle on the highway. When they anticipate any pedestrian or any object or any vehicle, the drivers have to take all precautions to avoid any casualty. In this case, the accused has not taken any care and caution while driving the vehicle and because of that the deceased Santaram Jyoteppa Malagi died due to the accidental injuries. He supports and justifies the reasons assigned by the Courts below in coming to such conclusion and he would submit that the both Courts have not committed any factual or - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2094 CRL.RP No. 100128 of 2018 legal error in passing the impugned judgments. He prays to dismiss this revision petition. 10. I have given my anxious consideration for the arguments on both side and perused the records. 11. In the case of present nature, it is a bounden duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Sofar as offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC is concerned, to attribute the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused in driving the vehicle, the prosecution is under the obligation to prove that a person drives any vehicle on a public way as to endanger human life has to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, that means the accused draw the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. If the accident took place because of the fault of the deceased, then the accused shall have to be acquitted. It is a case of the prosecution that the accused was driving the said Car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased who was standing by the side of the road. It is a defence of the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2094 CRL.RP No. 100128 of 2018 accused that the said deceased was trying to cross the road and as it was a cross road, the deceased has not taken all available precautions. According to the learned counsel for the accused, it was not expected by any of the pedestrians to cross the road or the cross the highway without seeing on either side of the road. Therefore, when it is alleged that the accused was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, it is bounden duty of the accused to prove by adducing the specific evidence so as to come to the conclusion that it was accused who was driving the Car in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life. Now, let me analyse that whether the evidence placed on record by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused or otherwise. 12. Ex.P.1 is the Complaint filed by one Kallappa Jyoteppa Malagi. He is not an eye-witness but, he is the brother of the deceased and he came to know about the accident only after his occurrence and filing of a complaint by him is not disputed by the defence so, to the extent of filing a complaint, Ex.P.1 is to be accepted. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2094 CRL.RP No. 100128 of 2018 Ex.P.2 is the receipt being issued by Kallappa Jyoteppa Malagi i.e., the complainant. Ex.P.3 is the scene of offence Panchanama where exactly the said accident has taken place is being stated in this Panchanama. As per this Panchanama, the deceased was standing by the side of the tar road itself. Ex.P.5 and 6 are the photographs showing the place of standing of the deceased on the tar road itself. Ex.P.5 shows that at the time of conducting the Panchanama, the Police have identified the place of standing of the deceased at the time of accident. Ex.P.5 is the Inquest Panchanama of Santaram, wherein it shows that after receipt of the complaint, the Police prepared the Inquest Panchanama in the Hospital, this fact is also not disputed. Ex.P.7 is the Postmortem report wherein it shows that the deceased died because of the accidental injuries. This fact is also not disputed by the defence. Ex.P.8 is the Indemnity Bond. Ex.P.9 is the Motor Vehicle Accident report which shows that the said accident has taken place not because of any mechanical defects. Contents of Ex.P.9 is also not disputed by the defence. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2094 CRL.RP No. 100128 of 2018 Ex.P.10 is the FIR. Ex.P.11 is the report of the Police. The important document is Ex.P.12 the sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer, which shows that where exactly the accident had taken place. After causing the accident, the vehicle went ahead up to 40 feet. It is a highway having a sufficient road width. It is a 4 lane Highway No.4 of Pune- Bangalore Highway. The said Car was moving towards Nipani. There is a approach road from Solapur cross and there is a bus stop. In the bus stop as per the evidence brought on record, there were so many persons were standing but, this deceased was standing on the tar road itself, that too on a 4 lane road itself as per the sketch. The sketch is not disputed by both the side. 13. So far as the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution, PW.1-Kallappa is the complainant and the hear say witness to the said accident. Therefore, his evidence is to be accepted to the extent that on receipt of information about the said accident, he filed a complaint as per Ex.P.1. He was very much present when the Inquest Panchanama was conducted by the Police as per - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2094 CRL.RP No. 100128 of 2018 Ex.P.2, to that extent, the evidence of this PW.1 is to be believed. 14. PW.2-Anil Mahadev Khanai is a Pancha to Ex.P.3-Panchanama, under the Ex.P.3, the Car was seized by the Police. This fact is also not disputed by the defence. 15. PW.3-Sanjay Bharamappa Mankale is the Pancha to Ex.P.3 and in his presence, the vehicle was seized by the Police to the extent of seizure of the said vehicle and preparation of the Inquest Panchanama as per Ex.P.5, the evidence of PW.3 is to be accepted. Accordingly, it is accepted to that extent. 16. PW.4-Namadev Bharamappa Mankale is a person who is branded as an eye-witness to the said accident. According to him, when the said accident has taken place, the deceased Santaram was standing near the Solapur gate on the tar road, at that time, a Car case and dashed against him. According to him, the said Car was coming in a high speed and the deceased had sustained injuries on his head and other parts of the body but, in the cross-examination he states that he was - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2094 CRL.RP No. 100128 of 2018 coming from Nipani side on a service road. He admits that on the either side of the road, there exist trees. He denies a suggestion that he could not notice the standing of the other persons near the bus stand on the service road. As per the sketch when he is coming from Nipani side, the service road is on other side of the road towards the eastern side. How come this PW.4 witnessed the said accident is not stated by him. According to the evidence of this PW.4, the accused was driving the said Car on National Highway No.7 on a speed track. He has not stated before the Police that this decased was standing to cross the road. He admits that the deceased belongs to his village, if the evidence of this PW.4 is scruplusly perused, though, the prosecution brands him an eye-witness but, he is actually not an eye-witness. When the accused was driving his vehicle in the speed track there must have been some attempt made by the deceased to cross the road as per the defence of the accused. So at that time, when it is a highway which is meant to drive the vehicle in a high speed, we cant expect any drivers to drive the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2094 CRL.RP No. 100128 of 2018 vehicle in a slow manner. There is a approach road. When the motor vehicle are the persons wants to join the highway, it is bounden duty to see on either side of the road and then approach the highway. But, in this case the deceased was standing on the tar road itself where the speed lane is situated on National Highway No.4 towards Nipani. 17. So therefore, the evidence of PW.4 would not help the case of the prosecution to prove that because of the fault of the accused, the accident has taken place. 18. PW5-Mahantesh Shantabai Malage, is hearsay witness being the son of the deceased. To the extent of receipt of information about the death of the deceased in the said accident, his evidence is to be accepted. PW6- Shivakumar Amati is a Software Engineer, being the owner of the said car. He states that he has executed the bond as per Ex.P8. He being the owner of the Ritz car has executed the indemnity bond. To that extent, I believe his evidence. PW7 – Nagesh Adiveppa Mali is the pancha to Ex.P1. He is signatory to Ex.P1-the complaint. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2094 CRL.RP No. 100128 of 2018 To that extent, his evidence is to be accepted. PW8 Arjun Seetaram Chorane is an eye witness as of the case of the prosecution, but the trend of cross examination spoke to by him shows that on National Highway No.4 most of the vehicles move in a speed manner. According to him, he has not seen the deceased Santaram where he was standing. In addition to this Santaram, so many persons were standing in the bus stand. Towards left side, there was a track. He states with regard to the availability of the Katta on which the people have to stand. He cannot be an eye witness as per the case of the prosecution. His evidence is very much silent because of rash and negligent driving of the car by the accused, the said accident taken place. It shows that the deceased was standing on the Tar road itself without anticipating any vehicle, but because of his negligence only, the said accent must have taken place. 19. PW9 – Nayazkhan Gaphoorkhan Pathan was the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who issued the mechanical examination report stating that the said - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2094 CRL.RP No. 100128 of 2018 accident has taken place not because of any mechanical defects. Except the denial nothing is elicited from the mouth of this witness. PW10-Manjunath Vasudev Naganoor is the Dy.S.P. who obtained the PM report and filed the charge sheet. So, also PW11 – Prakash Krishna Banahatti, the Police Head Constable who received the complaint and set the criminal law in motion, recorded the statement of the witnesses etc. In all criminal cases, panchas are the authors of the panchanama and investigation officers are the Supervisor of the investigation. Except the evidence of PW4 in this case, there is no evidence placed on record by the prosecution to prove that because of the rash and negligent driving of the Ritz car by the accused, the said accident has taken place. Even evidence of PW4 do not inspire any confidence in the mind of the Court that he has spoken truth before the Court and witnessed the accident from the other side of the service road etc. Therefore, all is not well of the case of the prosecution. But however, the learned trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court have - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2094 CRL.RP No. 100128 of 2018 come to the conclusion that the prosecution able to prove the guilty of the accused. In my considered opinion, such erroneous finding cannot stand at and it has to be set aside. In view of all these factual features a doubt arise in the case of the prosecution and benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused. So to say the ingredients of the offence under Section 279 and 304A of IPC are not fulfilled by the prosecution with acceptable evidence. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal by giving benefit of doubt. Consequently, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside. Resultantly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The revision petition is allowed. ii) The judgement of conviction passed in CC No.496/2013 dated 18.09.2015 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sankeshwar, confirmed in Crl.A No.154/2015 dated 26.12.2017 by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, (sitting at Chikodi), are hereby set aside. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2094 CRL.RP No. 100128 of 2018 iii) Consequentially, the petitioner- accused is acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC. iv) His bail bonds stand cancelled. He is set at liberty. v) Registry to send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment forthwith. vi) Registry is directed to send the operative portion of the judgment to the trial Court and First Appellate Court for compliance through mail. SD/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PJ /CT-VG VMB-para 17 to end LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 29