- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8115 CRL.RP No. 653 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 653 OF 2017 BETWEEN: KUMAR J K S/O. KARIYAYYA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. BANDHI HALLI HOUSE, JAMMANA HALLAI POST, SAKALESHPURLA TALUK, HASSAN. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. POOJA KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANTWALA TOWN POLICE STATION, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BANTWALA CIRCLE, D.K. DISTRICT 574211. (REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUATOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU 560001) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED U/S.397 AND 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 03.10.2015 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BANTWAL, D.K. IN C.C.NO.1075/2012 AND THE JUDGMENT & ORDER DATED 27.04.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.238/2015 (CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 279, 304A OF IPC AND SEC.134(a)(b) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT) AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by NARAYANA UMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8115 CRL.RP No. 653 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER 1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.10.2015 in C.C. No.1075/2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Bantwala, D.K., and its confirmation judgment dated 27.04.2017 in Crl.A. No.238/2015 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore, by which both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner herein is guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 134(a)(b) of Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience. Brief facts of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 31.07.2012 at about 10.30 p.m., the accused being the driver of the lorry bearing its No.KA-19-AE-9951 had driven the said lorry in a high speed on the National Highway and dashed - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8115 CRL.RP No. 653 of 2017 the Toyota Fortuner car bearing its No.KA-19-MC-4500, consequently, one of the inmates of the car died. A case came to be registered against the lorry driver in Crime No.142/2012. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charges sheet for the offences stated supra. 4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked 18 documents as Exs.P1 to P18. The Trial Court recorded the conviction against the accused and passed the order of sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused approached the Appellate Court wherein the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition. 5. Heard Smt. Pooja Kattimani, learned counsel for Sri.R.B.Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner / accused that the impugned judgments of the Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and capricious and the same - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8115 CRL.RP No. 653 of 2017 are opposed to the evidence on record. Therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. 7. It is further submitted that even though the manner in which the accident had occurred has not been proved, the Courts below have acted upon the evidence of the interested witnesses namely P.Ws.1 to 3 and rendered the conviction which needs to be re-looked. 8. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 does not corroborate with the evidence of other prosecution witnesses. The documentary evidence namely Exs.P7 and P8 are contrary to the evidence of other witnesses. In fact, the accident occurred on account of the fault committed by the driver of the Fortuner vehicle. 9. It is further submitted that the lorry was fully loaded with gas and it cannot be driven either at high speed or in a rash and negligent manner in the curve road. Moreover, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of rash and negligent act of the petitioner/accused. However, the Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner was responsible for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8115 CRL.RP No. 653 of 2017 the death of the deceased, which is not tenable and the same is liable to be set aside. Making such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently justified the judgments of the Courts below and he stated that all the witnesses are consistent in their evidence that the lorry was being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the accident had occurred, consequently, one of the inmates of the car died in the said accident. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction are appropriate and proper and interference with the said findings would not arise. Making such submission, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the findings of the Courts below in rendering the conviction, it is appropriate to have a cursory look upon the evidence. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8115 CRL.RP No. 653 of 2017 12. P.W.1 is the resident of Bondala, Hosamane village, Shamburu, Panemangaluru, and he knew the deceased. He deposed in his evidence that he was going on the road in his Scorpio vehicle. The lorry of which the accused was driving had overtaken his vehicle and passed little ahead and dashed the vehicle which was coming to its opposite directions. According to him, the accident occurred due to overtaking in a negligent manner. Though he deposed in his evidence that by that time he reached the spot, the accused was not there, identifying the accused in the Court for the first time is not proper and the Courts below ought not to have acted upon such evidence. 13. P.W.2 has deposed that on 31.07.2012, in the night, he was going on the motorcycle as a pillion rider. According to him, both were going to Kalladka. Around 10.30 p.m., a lorry which was going towards Kalladka stated to have dashed the Fortuner vehicle which was coming from Kalladka towards B.C. Road. He has said in his evidence that he knew the injured. He further said that, he got the injured admitted to the hospital for - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8115 CRL.RP No. 653 of 2017 treatment. However, he did not depose about the presence of the accused at the spot. According to him, the accused was not present at the spot when he reached the spot. 14. Similarly, P.W.3 also deposed the same verbatim of P.W.2 and he further deposed that he also did not notice the accused at the spot. 15. On conjoint reading of evidence of all these witnesses, it appears that though these witnesses have spoken about the rash and negligent act of the driver of the said lorry, they are all consistent that the accident had occurred and one of the inmates of the Fortuner Car died at the spot. However, none of these witnesses have spoken about the presence of the accused at the spot. When the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was the person who was driving the lorry as on the date of the accident, the Courts ought not to have concluded that the accused was driving the said vehicle as on the date of said incident. It is needless to say that the person who had obtained power-of-attorney to get - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8115 CRL.RP No. 653 of 2017 the lorry released from the custody of the police had stated in his evidence that he was not aware as to who was driving the said lorry at the time of accident. Such being the fact, the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction cannot be sustained. 16. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.10.2015 in C.C. No.1075/2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Bantwala, D.K., and its confirmation judgment dated 27.04.2017 in Crl.A No.238/2015 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore, are set aside. (iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 134(a)(b) of Motor Vehicles Act. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8115 CRL.RP No. 653 of 2017 (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54