- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8245 CRL.RP No. 1211 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1211 OF 2017 BETWEEN: OBALESH @ OBAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O MALLAKATTE BASAPPA R/A MARIYAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE HOSAPETE TALUK BALLARI DISTRICT – 583 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HALAWAGALU POLCIE STATION, DAVANAGERE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 07.01.2014 MADE IN C.C.NO.27/2010 BY THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HARAPANAHALLI AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8245 CRL.RP No. 1211 of 2017 ORAL ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 07.01.2014 in C.C.No.27/2010 on the file of the JMFC, Harapanahalli and its confirmation judgment and order dated 26.08.2017 in Crl.A.No.14/2014 on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner / accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of IPC. 2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience. Factual matrix of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.10.2009 at about 10.15 pm, the accused being a driver of Trax bearing Reg.No.KA-35/3989 had caused accident near Sevanagar Cross on Kanchikere. He is stated to have dashed the Tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-35/813-814 which - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8245 CRL.RP No. 1211 of 2017 was parked on the road. Consequently, C.Ws.10 to 12 have sustained grievous injuries and one Veeraiah died on the spot due to the injuries. Hence, the complaint came to be registered against the petitioner. 4. On the basis of the said complaint the respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.124/2009 against the petitioner. After conducting investigation submitted the charge sheet. 5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked, 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the accused found guilty of the offences stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings. 6. Heard Sri. Hareesh Bhandary T, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8245 CRL.RP No. 1211 of 2017 7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below have rendered the conviction for the offences stated supra, which is contrary to the evidence on record. 8. It is further submitted that both the Courts have committed error in appreciating the evidence on record, even though, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt regarding rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, and also the witnesses have not identified the accused at the spot, rendering the conviction would amounts to gross error and erroneous. Therefore, the conviction rendered by the Courts below is required to be set aside. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for petitioner prays to allow the petition. 9. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State vehemently justified the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below and he further submitted that the injured witnesses are the eye witnesses to the incident and they are consistent in their evidence that the accused was driving the Trax vehicle as - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8245 CRL.RP No. 1211 of 2017 on the date of accident and due to his negligence, the accident had occurred and one person by name Veeraiah, died on the spot and two persons have sustained injuries. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction. Hence, it would not be appropriate to interference with the findings of the Courts below. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the revision petition. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, it appears from the record that, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 14. In this case, some of the witnesses are relevant and their evidence is required to be considered to arrive at a conclusion that as to whether the findings of the Courts below are proper or not. 11. As per the evidence of prosecution, P.W.3 is the complainant. According to him, he along with C.W.6 were going to their land in order to drain out the water which - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8245 CRL.RP No. 1211 of 2017 was stored in the said land. When they reached Sevanagar Cross, they saw that the Trax dashed the tractor which was parked on the road as it’s tyre was punctured. Consequently, the Trax was turtled down. Due to that accident, one Veeraiah was died at the spot and two persons were sustained injuries. He further admitted that the accident occurred during night hours and the Tractor was parked in the left side of the road. He further admitted that, the accused-Obalesh was the driver of the Trax as on the date of the said accident. 12. Other two witnesses who are said to be inmates of the said Trax also sustained injuries in the said accident. They deposed that the driver of the Trax had negligently driven the said vehicle and caused accident, as a result of which, one person died on the spot and two persons were sustained injuries. 13. Even assuming that the said facts are true, the driver of the offending vehicle would also have sustained injuries and he must have been treated for the said injuries. Admittedly, the accident occurred during night hours and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8245 CRL.RP No. 1211 of 2017 the tractor was parked on the road side as a result of puncture to it’s tyre. In fact, none of the witnesses have deposed that the driver of the tractor had switched on the parking lights to indicate that the tractor was parked on road. 14. Be that as it may, if at all it is true that the passengers of the Trax have sustained injuries, obviously, the driver of the Trax would also have sustained injuries. The possibilities of getting injured is much higher than any other passengers. On reading of the entire charge sheet and evidence of all the witnesses, none of the witnesses have spoken about the injuries sustained to the driver of the Trax. Therefore, it creates a doubt as to whether the accused was driving the vehicle or not. Even P.W.9 stated in his evidence that the accused was driving the Trax vehicle, he being an owner of the vehicle had not produced any documents to show that he had appointed the said accused as a driver of the said Trax. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8245 CRL.RP No. 1211 of 2017 15. On reading of Ex.P.10 which is the motor vehicle accident report would indicate that the right side front bumper, head light damaged. Right side complete body damaged. If such being the fact, the driver of the vehicle must have sustained injuries. The said aspect even though has not been elicited, the prosecution implicated the accused in the case which is erroneous and not proper. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the findings of the Courts below are not proper, hence, they are liable to be set aside. 16. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 07.01.2014 passed in C.C.No.27/2010 by the JMFC, Harapanahalli and the judgment and order dated 26.08.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.14/2014 by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere are set aside. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8245 CRL.RP No. 1211 of 2017 iii. The petitioner is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. iv. Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20