- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8463 CRL.RP No. 15 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 15 OF 2017 BETWEEN: D THAJMAL S/O DASTHAGIR KHAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDENT OF M K KOPPALU BELUR TOWN, HASSAN - 573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHETHAN B, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA HASSAN TRAFFIC POLICE HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.12.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.168/2015 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.10.2015 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HASSAN IN C.C.NO.1323/2014 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH Digitally signed by NARAYANA UMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8463 CRL.RP No. 15 of 2017 ORAL ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.10.2015 in C.C.No.1323/2014 on the file of III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan and its confirmation judgment and order dated 01.12.2016 in Crl.A.No.168/2015 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan 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 Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) r/w Sections 134-B, 187, 184, 196 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘M.V. Act’). 2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience. Brief facts of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 01.09.2011 at about 07.15 p.m., when the deceased Sumaya Taj and C.W.7 were walking on Belur-Hassan Road in the left side and reached Shankar Saw Mill, the petitioner being the driver of the Maruthi Omni bearing No.KA-04-5570 drove - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8463 CRL.RP No. 15 of 2017 the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the pedestrian, as a result of which, Sumaya Taj died in the said accident and CWs.6 and 7 have sustained grievous injuries. A complaint came to be registered against the driver of the said vehicle. The jurisdictional police have registered a case against him and filed a charge sheet after investigation. 4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 16 and got marked 16 documents as Exhibits P1 to P16. Both the Courts have concurrently have held that the accused found guilty of the offences stated supra. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Heard Sri.Chetan.B, 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 the petitioner that though the prosecution examined several witnesses to the case, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 are relevant since they are the eyewitnesses to the incident. According to them, the accident had occurred due to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8463 CRL.RP No. 15 of 2017 negligent act of the pedestrians. However, the Courts below have relied on the evidence of PWs.13 and 14 who are said to be the injured witnesses to the incident, which is incorrect and not proper. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State opposed the said submissions and justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below and he further submitted that, merely because some of the witnesses have turned hostile, that may not be a ground to discredit the entire case. In fact, the other witnesses though they have turned hostile, have supported the case to the extent that the petitioner was driving the said vehicle and due to the negligent act of the driver, the accident had occurred. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction are appropriate and proper. Interference with the said findings may not be proper. Therefore, the petition has to be dismissed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8463 CRL.RP No. 15 of 2017 8. Having considered the said submissions and also the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, the Trial Court mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. However, on going through their evidence, it appears that they have not supported the case of the prosecution. In fact, the injured and the deceased crossed the road suddenly without following the lane discipline, as a result of which, the accident occurred. Further, they deposed that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the pedestrians and not as a result of rash and negligent act of the accused. 9. Though the evidence of these witnesses has been controverted by PWs.13 and 14, it is needless to say that they are not only the injured witnesses but also interested witnesses to the case. Such being the fact, the Courts below ought to have considered these inconsistencies between the evidence of two groups and benefit of doubt should have been extended to the accused. As the Courts below have failed to extend the benefit, interference with the findings is justified. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8463 CRL.RP No. 15 of 2017 10. 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 08.10.2015 passed in C.C.No.1323/2014 by the III Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Hassan and the judgment and order dated 01.12.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.168/2015 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan are set aside. (iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of IPC r/w Sections 134-B, 187, 184, 196 of Motor Vehicles Act. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20