- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27724 CRL.RP No. 206 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 206 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SYED JAN @ ABDUL REHAMAN S/O ABDUL REHAMAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A BESIDES OLD TOWN MASJID LEPAKSHI VILLAGE HINDUPUR TALUK ANANDHAPUR DISTRICT – 515 331. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI CHETHAN A C, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY GUDIBANDE POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUDIBANDE DATED 14.07.2015 IN C.C.No.231/2009 (ANNEXURE-A) CONVICTING THE PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER SECTIONS 279,337,338,304- A IPC 1860 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF THE THIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA DATED 07.08.2020 IN CRL.A.No.57/2015 Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27724 CRL.RP No. 206 of 2022 (ANNEXURE-B) CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER 1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 07.08.2020 passed in Crl.A. No. 57/2015 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur whereunder the judgment of conviction of the petitioner - accused dated 14.07.2015 passed in C.C. No. 231/2009 by Civil Judge and JMFC, Gudibande convicting the petitioner - accused for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of IPC and sentence thereon has been affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent – State. 3. Case of the prosecution before the trial Court was that on 31.12.2008 at 03.30 pm the accused being the driver of GMS private bus bearing registration No. AP- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27724 CRL.RP No. 206 of 2022 02-G-2286 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to human life on Gudibande – Amanigobyrasagarakere lake road, the bus turtled to the ditch as a result of which inmates of the bus sustained simple and grievous injuries, one Chikka Venkataravanappa died. Charge sheet has been filed against petitioner - accused for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of IPC. Prosecution has examined 49 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.49 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.51. Statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate, after hearing arguments on both sides, has convicted the petitioner - accused for offence under Section 279, 337, 338, 304-A of IPC. Petitioner - accused has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.750/- for offence under Section 279 of IPC; fine of Rs.350/- for offence under Section 337 of IPC; fine of Rs.750/- for offence under Section 338 of IPC with a default sentence and simple imprisonment of 2 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27724 CRL.RP No. 206 of 2022 offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Said judgment of conviction and order on sentence had been challenged by petitioner - accused before the Sessions Court in Crl.A. No. 57/2015 and the same came to be dismissed on merits affirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Road at the place of accident was not a good road, it had pot holes and curve. He contended that the accident had occurred due to the cut of steering. P.W. 44 – Motor Vehicle Inspector has admitted that he has not tested the bus by driving it. P.W.17 has stated in his evidence that there was cut of steering. He further submits that the road at the place of accident was narrow, it was a curve road and one could not drive the vehicle in high speed. He submits that witnesses have stated that petitioner had stopped the bus 200 meters prior to the place of accident and that itself - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27724 CRL.RP No. 206 of 2022 indicates that the bus was not driven in high speed. He submits that evidence placed on record is not sufficient to prove that petitioner - accused was driving the bus, at the time of accident, in a rash and negligent manner. Without considering this aspect Magistrate has convicted the petitioner - accused and the appellate Court has erred in affirming the said judgment of conviction. The trial Court and the appellate Court ought to have given benefit of doubt to the petitioner - accused. With this he prayed to allow the revision petition and acquit the petitioner - accused. 5. Learned HCGP has supported the reasons assigned by the trial Court and the appellate Court. He submits that evidence on record will clearly establish that petitioner - accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the bus fell into the ditch and 32 passengers sustained simple/grievous injuries and one person died. He submits that P.W.1 to P.W.33 were passengers and they are eye witnesses to the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27724 CRL.RP No. 206 of 2022 incident. With this he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent – State this Court has perused the trial Court records and appellate Court records. 7. It is not in dispute that petitioner - accused was driving the bus at the time of accident. The incident has occurred on 31.12.2008 at 03.30 pm. Road at the place of accident is having curve and on both sides there are guard stone pillars. Ex.P.5 – spot mahazar indicates that the bus went on to right side of road and damaged guard stone pillars and fell into the ditch. P.W.1 to P.W.33 – passengers have also stated regarding the manner in which accident has taken place. P.W.1 to P.W.33 were passengers in the said bus and they have sustained injuries. Even though sketch has been prepared at the time of preparing the spot mahazar – Ex.P.5, it is not marked. Even on perusal of the said sketch, which is part - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27724 CRL.RP No. 206 of 2022 of trial Court records, it is seen that at the place of accident the road is having curve. Considering the said aspect it appears that petitioner - accused had to take curve on left side, could not take the bus on the curve, went on to his right side and fell into the ditch. The very said aspect indicates that the driver of the bus was driving it in high speed as a result of which he could not control the bus and it fell into the ditch on the right side. 8. It is suggested to P.W.44 – Motor Vehicle Inspector who has issued report – Ex.P.16, after examination of the bus, that the steering of the bus was cut and for that he has stated that he did not test the bus by driving it. P.W.17 – one of the passengers in the bus has stated in his chief-examination that there was steering cut and in the cross-examination he has stated that he had stated so since there was talk in the hospital regarding the same. There is no suggestion by the accused to P.W.1 to P.W.33 – passengers and P.W.34 – conductor - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27724 CRL.RP No. 206 of 2022 of the bus that there was cut of the steering and it caused the accident. 9. Even petitioner - accused who was driving the bus has not stated anything regarding how the accident had taken place while recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Merely because there are some pot holes in the road it cannot be said that the driver of the bus was driving it slowly. There is no suggestion to P.W.1 to P.W.33 that petitioner - accused was driving the bus slowly. P.W.34 has stated in his cross-examination that the bus was driven at a speed of 60 – 70 KMs and in his chief-examination he has stated that driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there are brake marks on the road and it is noted in Ex.P.5 – spot mahazar. On meticulous reading of Ex.P.5 - spot mahazar there are no such marks found on the road, but, there are marks of tyre on right side after guard stone pillars which show that those marks occurred when the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27724 CRL.RP No. 206 of 2022 bus was falling into the ditch. Considering all these aspects it is clear that petitioner - accused drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the accident had occurred which resulted in death of one person and caused injury to 32 passengers of the bus. Considering the said aspect, the trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner - accused and appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly affirmed the conviction passed by the trial Court. In the result the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 Ct.sm