- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7411 CRL.RP No. 100036 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100036 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. PRAKASH S/O. SALVADOR SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. NAGARBASTIKERI, GERUSOPPA, TQ. HONNAVAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.V. BHARAMAGOUDA, ADVOCATE AND SMT. BHAGYASHREE N.BIKKANNAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HONNAVAR P.S., REP. BY HIGH COURT SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 19.12.2015 MADE IN CC NO.357/2013 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JMFC, HONNAVAR AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 29.10.2021 DISMISSING CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.156/2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR, IN SO FAR AS CONVICTING THE PETITIONER ACCUSED NO.2 UNDER SECTION 279, 338 AND 304-A OF IPC, AND SET THE PETITIONER ACCUSED NO.2 AT LIBERTY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7411 CRL.RP No. 100036 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Accused No. 2 in C.C. No. 357/2013, aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.12.2015, has preferred this appeal challenging the order of conviction, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 156/2015 by judgment dated 29.10.2021. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.03.2013 at about 3:45 p.m., accused No.1 was driving an Eicher lorry bearing Registration No. KA-17/A-5253 from Sagar towards Honnavar, while accused No.2 was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-47/H-9370 from Honnavar towards Sagar. Both vehicles met with an accident near Sarlagi Baletaragadi Cross. The accident is alleged to have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both accused. In the said accident, the pillion rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same while undergoing treatment in the hospital. PW-2 lodged a complaint, pursuant to which an FIR was registered against accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 146 read with Section 196 of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7411 CRL.RP No. 100036 of 2022 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Trial Court recorded the evidence of six witnesses and marked thirteen exhibits on behalf of the prosecution. 2.1 The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted accused No.1 and convicted accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No.2 was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one month and a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 10 days. For the offence under Section 338 IPC, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months and a fine of ₹1,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. For the offence under Section 304-A IPC, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months and a fine of ₹2,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. 3. Accused No.2, being aggrieved by the order of conviction, preferred an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The First Appellate Court, upon re- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7411 CRL.RP No. 100036 of 2022 appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the order of conviction. 4. Sri G.V. Bharamagouda and Smt. Bhagyashree N. Bikkannavar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submit that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have erroneously recorded the conviction of accused No.2 solely on the basis of the evidence of PW-2. It is contended that PW-2 is not an eyewitness to the occurrence of the accident. It is further submitted that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Eicher lorry and its presence on the road at the curve, which caused the motorcycle to skid while negotiating the turn. It is argued that the accident was beyond the control of accused No.2, who was riding his motorcycle with due care and caution, and that there was no negligence on his part contributing to the accident. Accordingly, it is submitted that the conviction recorded against accused No.2 is unsustainable in law, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 5. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7411 CRL.RP No. 100036 of 2022 submits that PW-2 is an eyewitness to the incident, and his testimony clearly establishes the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by accused No.2, which resulted in the accident and the consequent death of the pillion rider. It is further submitted that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, have rightly concluded that accused No.2 was negligent in riding his motorcycle, thereby causing the fatal accident. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the Courts below warrants no interference. 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the pillion rider died as a result of the accident involving the Eicher lorry bearing registration No. KA-17/A-5253 and the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-47/H-9370. The fact of the death of the pillion rider due to the said accident is not in dispute. 7. The only point that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by accused No.2. Both the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7411 CRL.RP No. 100036 of 2022 Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have heavily relied upon the testimony of PW-2, who has been examined by the prosecution as an eyewitness. However, a careful perusal of the evidence of PW-2 reveals that he has categorically admitted that he did not witness the actual occurrence of the accident. His statement that the motorcycle overtook his vehicle at a high speed and that the accident was caused due to such negligent riding, observed five minutes after the incident, is purely speculative and not based on direct observation. There is no substantive evidence on record to prove that accused No.2 was riding the motorcycle at a high speed or in a rash and negligent manner. No specific evidence has been adduced to establish the actual speed of the motorcycle at the relevant time. It is well settled that the speed of a vehicle cannot, by itself, be considered conclusive to establish rashness or negligence, as it varies depending on several factors, including the type of vehicle, the experience of the rider, and the geographical and topographical conditions of the location. The evidence on record further indicates that the motorcycle was being ridden on an upward gradient in a ghat section with - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7411 CRL.RP No. 100036 of 2022 several curves, thereby necessitating cautious interpretation of the circumstances surrounding the accident. 7.1 Furthermore, there is no evidence on record to establish whether the Eicher lorry contributed in any manner to the occurrence of the accident. The testimony of PW-2 is silent as to any possible act of negligence on the part of the lorry driver. In the absence of such evidence, it would not be proper to attribute the entire blame for the accident solely to the alleged rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by accused No.2. The prosecution has failed to rule out the possibility of contributory negligence on the part of the lorry driver, and in such circumstances, it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction of accused No.2 in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence establishing exclusive negligence on his part. 8. The spot sketch marked as Ex.P-4 indicates that the width of the road at the place of occurrence is approximately 20 feet, and the position of the motorcycle is shown to be around the 11th foot from one side of the road. This clearly suggests that there was sufficient space available for the Eicher lorry to safely pass the motorcycle. In such a factual scenario, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7411 CRL.RP No. 100036 of 2022 it cannot be conclusively held that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by accused No.2. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence attributing exclusive fault to the accused, it would not be appropriate to sustain the conviction. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 9. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, relying upon the testimony of PW-2, have recorded a finding that accused No.2 was riding his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. However, PW-2 has specifically admitted that he had not witnessed the accident and had reached the spot nearly five minutes after the incident had occurred. In such circumstances, it is highly improbable that PW-2 was an eyewitness to the accident, and his testimony, therefore, lacks credibility. Further, there is no other cogent or reliable evidence on record to substantiate the case of the prosecution. The Courts below have failed to properly consider these material aspects of the case, and as such, the findings recorded therein - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7411 CRL.RP No. 100036 of 2022 suffer from serious infirmities. Consequently, the impugned orders of conviction are not sustainable in law. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the following, ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The Judgment in C.C.No.357/2013 dated 19.12.2015 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Honnavar and judgment in Criminal Appeal No.156/2015 dated 29.10.2021 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, are set aside. (iii) Accused No.2 is acquitted of all charged offences. (iv) The fine amount in deposit if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner/accused No.2. (v) The bail bonds are cancelled. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7411 CRL.RP No. 100036 of 2022 (vi) Registry to return the Trial Court records forthwith. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19