- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8117 CRL.RP No. 813 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. 813 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SRI RIYAZ S/O BHAKSHU SAB AGED 44 YEARS R/AT BUDADAGATTA AREA GOWNIPALLI VILLAGE, MADANAPALLI TALUK ROYALPAD HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M M ASHOKA, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT BY P.S.I. GOWNIPALLI POLICE STATION, GOWNIPALLI KOLAR DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 22.04.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR IN CRL.A.NO.99/2013 CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2013 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SRINIVASPUR, KOLAR DISTRICT, IN C.C.NO.354/2010 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279 AND 304(A) OF IPC. 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: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH Digitally signed by NARAYANA UMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8117 CRL.RP No. 813 of 2017 CAV ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.10.2013 in C.C.No.354/2010 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Srinivaspur and its confirmation judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.99/2013 dated 22.04.2017 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar has filed this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner /accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 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 03.07.2010 at about 5.30 p.m., the petitioner being a driver of the lorry bearing its registration No.KA-16-A-7778 was driving the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8117 CRL.RP No. 813 of 2017 and dashed against the motorcycle bearing its registration No.KA-07-K-3482. Consequently, both the rider and the pillion rider have sustained injuries. The pillion rider died at the spot and the rider of the motorcycle died in the hospital. A case came to be registered against the petitioner. A charge sheet came to be filed after investigation. 4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined nine witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 and got marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded the conviction for the offences stated supra. On appeal being filed, the same was confirmed by the Appellate Court. 5. Heard Sri.M.M.Ashoka, learned counsel for the 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 the concurrent findings of the Courts - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8117 CRL.RP No. 813 of 2017 below are perverse and illegal and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. 7. It is further submitted that though the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 would indicate that they are the alleged eyewitnesses to the incident, the facts remain that they are the highly interested witnesses. Their evidence ought not to have been considered by the Trial Court. P.W.8 being an independent witness has turned hostile. 8. It is further submitted that as per the sketch, the road was in a ‘S’ shape. The alleged accident occurred in the curve. Such being the fact, riding the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in such a curve would become unrealistic and unbelievable. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the rash and negligent act of the petitioner. 9. It is further submitted that even though the ingredients of Section 279 of IPC are not made out, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court construed erroneously that the accused has committed an offence, which is liable to be - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8117 CRL.RP No. 813 of 2017 set aside. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 10. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below and he further submitted that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is relevant. The evidence of panch witnesses is also relevant. As per the evidence of eyewitnesses, the driver of the vehicle was driving the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the accident had occurred. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction are appropriate and proper, hence, interfering with the said findings may not be proper and justifiable. Hence, the petition may be dismissed as devoid of merits. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below, it is necessary to have a cursory look on the evidence of all the witnesses. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8117 CRL.RP No. 813 of 2017 12. P.W.1 says that he was present at the spot when the accident occurred. However, he did not say as to why he had present at the spot of accident. Moreover, as he admitted that, the deceased Rajappa was his brother-in- law, his evidence is shrouded with suspicion. Therefore, acting on the evidence of this witness, in my considered opinion, is not proper and justifiable. 13. P.W.2 stated to be the eyewitness to the incident. He had been to coolie work at the land of Venkatarama Reddy. He says in his evidence that the lorry was going at high speed. Further, he stated that he did not know as to how the said accident had occurred. 14. P.W.3 is also one of the eyewitnesses to the incident had stated in his evidence that his garden land is situated besides the main road. He was in his land and heard the sound of accident and went to spot and said to have treated the injured. However, he did not depose about the presence of PWs.1 and 2 at the spot as on the date of the alleged accident. Such being the fact, it is not appropriate to believe that all these witnesses were - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8117 CRL.RP No. 813 of 2017 eyewitnesses to the incident. However, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court appreciated the evidence of these witnesses as eyewitnesses and acted upon their evidence in rendering the conviction which, in my considered opinion is grave error. Therefore, the judgment and order of the Courts below are required to be set aside. 15. Moreover, the documentary evidence has also not supported the case of the prosecution. To prove the rash and negligent act of the driver of the vehicle, the evidence of the eyewitnesses are sine-qua-non. It is also necessary to mention that the said act can be proved even on the strength of attending circumstances. 16. In the present case, when the evidence of eyewitnesses is not supported the act of rash and negligent driving of the driver, the contributory negligence cannot be ignored. Such being the fact, the conviction rendered by the Courts below are held to be unsustainable. Therefore, it needs to be set aside. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8117 CRL.RP No. 813 of 2017 17. 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 on sentence dated 07.10.2013 passed in C.C.No.354/2010 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Srinivaspur and the judgment and order dated 22.04.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.99/2013 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar are set aside. iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55