- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8163 CRL.RP No. 906 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 906 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SRI. UMMAR ALI S/O PAKIRA BEARY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NEAR ATRADI PRIMARY SCHOOL, ATHRADI POST UDUPI - 576 101. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. P V KALPANA, AMICUS CURIAE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRAFFIC EAST POLICE STATION, MANGALORE, D.K. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 31.08.2013 MADE IN C.C.NO.1055/2010 BY THE COURT OF J.M.F.C. (III COURT), MANGALURU, D.K., AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 27.06.2016 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.323/2013 BY THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR 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:8163 CRL.RP No. 906 of 2016 ORAL ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 31.08.2013 in C.C.No.1055/2010 on the file of the JMFC (III Court), Mangalore, D.K., and its confirmation judgment and order dated 27.06.2016 in Crl.A.No.323/2013 on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore 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, 304(A) of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of IMV 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 28.12.2009 at about 11.35 a.m., the petitioner being the driver of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-19-B-4577, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to human life and dashed to the Honda Deo Scooter which was - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8163 CRL.RP No. 906 of 2016 proceeding in front of Geetha K Compund at Kadri Tolgate Tarethota Cross, as a result, the rider of the said scooter and the pillion rider both had sustained grievous injuries. The rider of the scooter succumbed to the injuries on the spot and the pillion rider was succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. After causing accident, the driver of the bus has neither shifted injured to the hospital nor intimated to the nearest police station about the accident and fled away from the spot. Hence, the complaint came to be registered against the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant- C.W.1, the respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.150/2009 against the petitioner. After conducting investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. 4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked 21 documents as Exs.P1 to P21. The Trial Court after conducting the trial, opined that the accused is found guilty of the offences stated supra and passed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence. Being aggrieved by - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8163 CRL.RP No. 906 of 2016 the said judgment of conviction, the accused preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings. 5. Heard Smt. P.V.Kalpana, learned Amicus-Curaie for the petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 6. It is the submission of the learned Amicus-Curaie for the petitioner that the Courts below have rendered the conviction for the offences stated supra, which is contrary to the evidence on record. 7. It is further submitted that the accident occurred on the curve road, P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that the accident had occurred at Kadri Tolgate Tarethota Cross which is totally curved place and vehicles have to be moved slowly and cautiously. However, the Courts below have arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner with high - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8163 CRL.RP No. 906 of 2016 speed which appears to be erroneous and the said findings cannot be sustainable. 8. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 claims to be an eye witness, however, it is doubtful for the reason that he came to the spot after the accident. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be accepted as eye witness. None of the witnesses have clearly deposed that the driver of the said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner. In the absence of evidence in respect of rash and negligent driving, rendering the conviction would amount to gross error and also illegal. Therefore, the conviction rendered by the Courts below is required to be set aside. Making such submissions, the learned Amicus-Curiae 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 P.Ws.1 to 5 are consistent in their evidence that the petitioner was driving the said bus in a - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8163 CRL.RP No. 906 of 2016 rash and negligent manner with high speed and caused the accident to the Honda Dio motor cycle. Due to which, the rider and the pillion rider both had sustained injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. 10. It is further submitted that the evidence of independent witnesses are consistent that the petitioner was driving the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and also noticed that the petitioner has neither informed the nearest police station about the accident nor shifted the injured to the hospital for treatment. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly recorded the conviction in respect of offences as stated supra. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the revision petition. 11. 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 petitioner was the driver of the said bus, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident to the Honda Deo scooter. Consequently, the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8163 CRL.RP No. 906 of 2016 rider of the motor cycle died on the spot and the child who was the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. 12. P.W.1 is a complainant, P.W.2 is a conductor of the said bus, P.W.3 is a witness to the spot panchanama and also eye witness to the accident and P.W.5 is a circumstantial witness to the accident. All these witnesses are consistent in their evidence that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. P.W.8 being an owner of the said bus had identified the notice issued by the police which is marked as Ex.P.12 and he identified his signature as Ex.P.12(a). Though he denied the contention of both the documents, the facts remains that he was the owner of the said bus and the accused was the driver of the said bus. 13. After having gone through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and 8, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt however, the learned Amicus Curiae submits, alternative submissions that incase, if this Court arrives at a - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8163 CRL.RP No. 906 of 2016 conclusion that the findings of the Courts below are appropriate, leniency may be shown to the petitioner in respect of imprisonment. 14. Having considered the alternative submissions of the learned Amicus Curiae, it may be noted that the incident had occurred on 28.12.2009 and the Trial Court recorded the conviction on 31.08.2013 and the Appellate Court confirmed the said conviction on 27.06.2016, this Court affirmed both the orders on this day. The petitioner had traveled in the journey of appearing the Court proceedings since 2009 and getting the confirmation order in the year 2025. The petitioner had completed almost 16 years. Moreover, he has not committed any similar offences even though he has been working as a driver by profession during these days. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, rendering the fine instead of imprisonment would be appropriate, thereby, ends of justice would be satisfied. 15. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8163 CRL.RP No. 906 of 2016 ORDER i. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 31.08.2013 passed in C.C.No.1055/2013 by the JMFC (III Court), Mangalore, D.K. and the judgment and order dated 27.06.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.323/2013 by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore is hereby modified. iii. The petitioner is sentenced to pay consolidated fine of Rs.50,000/- of which he had been convicted for the aforesaid offences. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court for the aforesaid offences. iv. On deposit of the said fine amount, the Trial Court is directed to release the amount of Rs.45,000/- in favor of legal heirs of the deceased on proper identification in terms of Section 357-A of Cr.P.C., and the remaining balance of Rs.5,000/- has to be adjusted to the exchequer of the State. v. The Registry is directed to send the records along with this order forthwith to the Trial Court for compliance of this order. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8163 CRL.RP No. 906 of 2016 The assistance rendered by the learned Amicus- Curiae for the petitioner is appreciated. The appreciation is placed on record. The Legal Services Authority is directed to pay the honorarium of Rs.5000/- to the learned Amicus-Curiae forthwith. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18