- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32946 CRL.RP No. 110 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 110 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SRI SUBRAMANYA, S/O. NINGANNA,AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT KONNOR VILLAGE AND POST, BALEGARA BEEDI, ARAKALAGUDU, HASANA DISTRICT - 573201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V LAKSHMI KANTHA RAO.,ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY PEENYA TRAFFIC P.S, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE BOTH LEARNED MAGISTRATE SENTENCE THE PETITIONER TO UNDER GO IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH AND TO PAY FINE OF RUPEES 2000/- EACH OFFENCES IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 30 DAYS AND SAME IS CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BY ITS ORDER DATED 05.11.2018 IN CRL.A.NO.1469/2016. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32946 CRL.RP No. 110 of 2019 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 2. Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one month each for offence under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence each of the offences. In case of default to pay the fine accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 3. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Petition. 4. The prosecution alleges that on 20.04.2015 at about 6:45 p.m. the petitioner being the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, PW.2 sustained grievous injury as he fell down from the bus while PW.2 was boarding the bus. Prosecution alleges that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32946 CRL.RP No. 110 of 2019 5. Petitioner disputed the allegation and contested the matter. 6. From the defense raised by the petitioner, it is noticed that, it is the case of the petitioner that PW-2, tried to board the moving bus which started moving after alighting all the passengers. 7. PW-1 is said to be the eyewitness to the accident. PW-2 is the victim. It is relevant to notice that PW-2, the victim has not filed the complaint. The complaint is registered by the police. PW-1 was examined and the accused requested to grant adjournment for cross examination of PW-1. Same was rejected. 8. PW-2 - the victim is also examined and was cross examined by the accused. 9. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have concluded that there is no cross examination of PW-1 and there is no contest to the statement made by PW-2 relating to negligence attributed by the victim. On these grounds, both Courts have held that the prosecution has proved the case. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32946 CRL.RP No. 110 of 2019 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that request to adjourn the matter for cross examination of PW-1 could not have been rejected. It is his submission that said refusal to grant adjournment amounts to denial of fair opportunity of hearing. 11. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the accused would submit that even if the examination-in-chief of PW-1 is perused, it is explicit that no negligence is attributed against the petitioner. 12. It is also urged that PW-2 did not speak anything about the alleged rash and negligent act of driving by the driver who tried to move the bus while the victim was allegedly attempting to board the parked bus. 13. Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that there is no cross examination to the evidence of PW-1 and negligence attributed on the petitioner, by the victim- PW-2 is not disputed in the cross examination of PW-2 and both Courts have concurrently held that negligence is established. It is also urged that scope of this Court under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32946 CRL.RP No. 110 of 2019 Section 397 is narrow and no ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings. 14. This Court has considered the contention and perused the records. 15. It is indeed true that PW-1 is not cross examined. However, that by itself does not amount to proof of negligence of the petitioner. What is stated by PW-1 is relevant. PW-1 stated that he was waiting for the bus in the bus stop, PW-2 the victim attempted to board the bus and the bus moved forward, and PW-2 lost balance and sustained injury. If the evidence of PW-1 is carefully perused, it is not forthcoming as to whether the victim was attempting to board the stationed bus or moving bus. 16. Assuming that the statement given by PW-1 can be interpreted to say that PW-2 made an attempt to board the stationed bus while he was boarding the bus, and the accused drove the vehicle, still sufficient evidence is not on record to hold that the petitioner was negligent. It is not forthcoming as to whether PW-2 made an attempt to board the bus from the front or rear door. If it is from the rear door then the question - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32946 CRL.RP No. 110 of 2019 is whether the Conductor had signal to take the bus forward. It is not the case of the prosecution that despite Conductor not giving signal, the Driver drove the bus. 17. Thus, even if there is no cross examination to the evidence of PW-1, it is of little consequence as evidence of PW1 does not point to guilt of the petitioner. 18. As far as the evidence of PW-2 - victim is concerned, again it is noticed that he makes a statement that while he was boarding the bus, the driver without noticing the fact that PW-2 was boarding the bus, negligently drove the bus and the victim fell down and sustained injury. Again, if the evidence is noticed, the PW-2 does not say whether he made an attempt to board the stationed bus or a moving bus. 19. PW-2 does not say that he had tried to board the stationed bus and before he could board the bus, the driver drove the vehicle. The evidence in examination-in-chief itself is ambiguous in the sense, it does not point out as to whether the victim was attempting to board a stationed or a moving bus. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32946 CRL.RP No. 110 of 2019 20. In the cross examination, a suggestion is put by the defense counsel to say that the victim made an attempt to board the moving bus which is denied by PW2. That by itself is not sufficient to hold that the charge of negligence is established. 21. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have observed that the negligence alleged by PW2 is not disputed by the petitioner. However, this observation is wholly incorrect. In the cross-examination it has been suggested that accident has occurred due to the negligence of PW-2 and he made an attempt to board the moving bus. It is also suggested that false case is filed against the petitioner. 22. This being the position, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court could not have held that the negligence alleged is not disputed by the petitioner. 23. This Court has also perused the provisions of Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. This Court is of the view that necessary ingredients to attract the charges under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC against the accused are not made out. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32946 CRL.RP No. 110 of 2019 24. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned judgments are unsustainable. 25. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment dated 24.11.2016 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court - III, Bengaluru in C.C.No.9792/2015 so also the judgment dated 05.11.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, CCH-65, Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.1469/2016 are set-aside. (iii) Accused is acquitted of charges. (iv) Learned counsel for the accused makes a statement that the accused does not intend to claim the fine amount. Said statement is placed on record. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 51