- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7606 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100123 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: RUKMAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA HARIJAN, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER OF KSRTC, R/O. REVANIKI, TQ. YELBURGA, KOPPAL DISTRICT-582105. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYAVANT KAMBALI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, POLICE STATION, YELBURGA, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD BENCH-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 23.03.2019 MADE IN CRL. APPEAL NO.15/2013 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND FINE DATED 02.03.2013 MADE IN C.C.NO.204/2012 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, YELBURGA, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279, 337, 338 OF I.P.C., IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7606 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2019 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Jayavant Kambali, learned counsel for Sri S.M.Kalwad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent/State. 2. The present criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment of conviction dated 02.03.2013 passed in C.C. No.204/2012 and the consequent order of sentence, whereby the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, three months for the offence under Section 337 of IPC, and six months for the offence under Section 338 of IPC, along with imposition of fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500/-, and Rs.1,000/- respectively. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7606 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2019 3. The case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 13.07.2011 at about 2:30 a.m., the accused was driving a KSRTC store bus bearing registration No. KA- 37/F-158 on the Haralahalli–Varjabandi road in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life, and in the course of such driving, dashed against a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Engine No. HA-11/EDC9B30067, which was approaching from the opposite direction. As a result of the impact, the rider and the pillion rider of the motorcycle fell down and sustained injuries. The incident was reported to the police, pursuant to which an FIR was registered. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 7 documents as exhibits. The defence examined 2 witnesses and marked 1 exhibit. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court recorded a finding that the accused was guilty of the offences - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7606 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2019 charged, convicted him accordingly, and imposed sentence. Aggrieved by the conviction, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 15/2013. Upon examination of the Trial Court’s findings and re-appreciation of the evidence, the Appellate Court confirmed both the conviction and sentence as ordered in C.C. No. 204/2012 dated 02.03.2013. 5. Sri Jayavant Kambali, learned counsel appearing for Sri S.M. Kalwad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is without proper consideration of the material contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel further contends that PW4 himself was riding his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, which caused the accident involving the KSRTC bus coming from the opposite direction. It is further submitted that, having regard to the width of the road, it is highly improbable that the accused was driving the bus - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7606 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2019 at high speed, whereas such rashness could be attributed to PW4. 6. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent– State, submits that the Trial Court recorded conviction based on the evidence of material witnesses. The prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Both Courts have recorded concurrent findings of conviction. The evidence of PW11, the Doctor, as reflected in Exhibits P6 and P7, establishes that grievous injuries were sustained. The defence contention that the accused reported the alleged rash and negligent driving to the police station but his complaint was refused registration is not substantiated and is an afterthought. In view of the foregoing submissions, learned Additional Government Advocate prays for dismissal of the revision petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7606 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2019 7. The alleged accident dated 13.07.2011 involving the KSRTC store bus bearing registration No. KA- 37/F-158 and the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Engine No. HA-11/EDC9B30067 is not in dispute. It is also undisputed that the accused was driving the bus, while PW1 and PW4 were riding the motorcycle, with one of them being the pillion rider, and both sustained injuries in the said accident. The question that requires examination is whether the prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients of Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. To constitute an offence under Section 279 IPC, the prosecution must establish rash or negligent driving so as to endanger human life or to cause hurt or injury to any other person. Similarly, the offence under Section 337 IPC requires proof that a person acted rashly or negligently, thereby endangering human life or the personal safety of others by causing hurt to any person. The ingredients under Section 338 IPC are akin to those under Section 337, with the distinction being the causing - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7606 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2019 of grievous hurt. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 7 exhibits. 8. There is no dispute that the accident occurred on a public road, as recorded by the Trial Court, which permits all classes of vehicles and connects two parts of the taluk, being used by the general public. The Trial Court relied primarily on the evidence of PW1, the pillion rider, and PW4, the rider of the motorcycle, to accept the prosecution’s case. Based on their testimony, the Trial Court concluded that the driver of the bus was driving in a rash and negligent manner. PWs 6 and 7, examined as eyewitnesses, also deposed that the bus driver was rash and negligent and had dashed the Hero Honda motorcycle. However, their statements only indicate rash and negligent driving without further elaboration. The nature of rash and negligent driving depends upon the class of vehicle involved and the geographical and situational conditions. The place and surrounding circumstances play a crucial - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7606 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2019 role in determining what constitutes rash and negligent conduct. 9. Exhibit P2, the spot mahazar along with the spot sketch, reveals that the width of the road is 10 feet on either side of the spine road, with an additional 3 feet of mud road available, which however is at a different elevation. The bus occupied approximately 7 feet of the road, leaving 3 feet for two-wheelers. The sketch in Ex.P2 indicates that the bus was on the extreme left, leaving sufficient space for the oncoming vehicle to pass. In light of the road width, it is difficult to accept the prosecution’s claim that the KSRTC bus was driven at high speed. 10. Merely because the bus is a large vehicle, and in the absence of clear evidence regarding how PWs 1 and 4 were riding the motorcycle in the opposite direction, the versions of PWs 1 and 4 cannot be accepted at face value. Although PWs 6 and 7 supported the prosecution, their evidence cannot be accepted in its entirety, considering - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7606 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2019 their relationship with PWs 1 and 4, all being residents of the same village. Unless corroborated by independent evidence, reliance solely on their statements is unsafe, especially when the spot sketch (Ex.P2) suggests a different scenario. Exhibit P3, showing the damage to both vehicles, only establishes the occurrence of the accident, which is not disputed. Exhibits P6 and P7 establish the injuries sustained by PWs 1 and 4. 11. On overall consideration of the prosecution evidence, it is difficult to accept that the accused was driving the KSRTC store bus at a high speed or in a rash and negligent manner. Both Courts, relying heavily on the testimony of PWs 1, 4, 6, and 7, have recorded a finding of guilt against the accused. However, a re-appreciation of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The well-settled principle that the benefit of doubt arising from the evidence must be given - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7606 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2019 to the accused merits reiteration and must be applied in the present case. 12. In the light of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that both Courts committed an error in holding the accused guilty of the offences charged. The orders passed by both Courts cannot be sustained as they are manifestly flawed and suffer from infirmity. 13. In the light of the above discussion, the following: ORDER i. The criminal revision petition is allowed. ii. The order of conviction dated 02.03.2013 in C.C.No.204/2012 on the file of Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Yelburga and order dated 23.03.2019 in Crl.A.No.15/2013 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Koppal are hereby set aside. iii. Accused is acquitted of all the charged offences. iv. Bail bonds stand cancelled. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7606 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2019 v. The fine amount in deposit, if any shall be refunded to the accused. vi. No order as to costs. vii. Registry to return records to the Trial Court. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE CLK CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8