- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2367 CRL.RP No. 200007 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200007 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: GURAYYA S/O VEERAYYA, AGE:48 YEARS, OCC:DRIVER, R/O. CHOWDESHWARI COLONY, KALABURAGI-585103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE THROUGH GRAMEEN P.S., REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA, KALABURAGI-585107. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W SEC.401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2019 PASSED BY I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT KALABURAGI IN CRL.A.NO.76/2018 BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2018 IN C.C.NO.2555/2013 PASSED BY V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALABURAGI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2367 CRL.RP No. 200007 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the concurrent findings passed by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC and Section 187 of IMV Act. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 19.02.2013 at about 7.30 p.m., the complainant, CW.6 and one Ajit Kumar were returning towards their house from Gola village on their motorcycle. When they came near Bhimalli Cross on Gola road, the accused being the driver of the Cruiser Jeep bearing its registration No.KA-23/M-6474 drove the same towards Kalaburagi in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the same to the bike of the complainant. Due to the said accident, the complainant as well as C.W.6 –Anil, both had sustained fracture injuries. On the other hand, Ajith Kumar, who was sitting in between them had sustained head injuries and succumbed to the said injuries - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2367 CRL.RP No. 200007 of 2020 on the spot itself. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered against the accused. The respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.99/2023 for the offences stated supra. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 3. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record rendered the conviction for the offences stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this petition. 4. Heard Sri.Gururaj V.Hasilkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned HCGP for the respondent – State. 5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the concurrent findings of the Courts below are perverse, illegal and opposed to the evidence on record. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2367 CRL.RP No. 200007 of 2020 6. It is further submitted that the independent and mahazar witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. In fact, the identity of the driver of the offending vehicle has not been proved. Therefore, the conviction is liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State vehemently justified the concurrent findings and he further submitted that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 establishes the fact that, on 19.02.2013, PW.1, PW.3 and deceased Ajith Kumar after completion of the function, they were returning to Kalaburagi on the motorcycle. A cruiser jeep came from their opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to their motorcycle. PWs.1 and 3 had sustained injuries in the said accident and admitted in the hospital for treatment. They are the eyewitnesses to the incident. They have identified the driver of the vehicle. PW.6 – Doctor had categorically supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court rightly rendered the conviction and there are no infirmities in the findings of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2367 CRL.RP No. 200007 of 2020 Trial Court. Hence, the judgment of conviction and its confirmation order are required to be upheld. Making such submissions, the learned HCGP prays to reject the petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below, it is necessary to refer the facts of the case in brief. 9. It is the case of the prosecution that, the petitioner was driving the vehicle and caused accident to the motorcycle of which PWs.1 and 3 along with the deceased were traveling on the motorcycle. A case has been registered against him. He had been convicted by the Trial Court and the same has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. 10. PW.1 is stated to be the rider of the motorcycle bearing its registration No.KA-32-B2355. He deposed that when he was riding the motorcycle and coming back from the function to Kalaburagi, a cruiser vehicle hit his motorcycle and caused injuries to him and to PW.3. However, the deceased Ajith Kumar died on the spot. A suggestion was made to him that he was riding the motorcyle on triple riding basis. Hence, he lost his control and caused accident, which is denied by PW.1. Though, he is stated to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2367 CRL.RP No. 200007 of 2020 have identified the driver of the vehicle, as the driver was stranger to him, the identification parade ought to have been conducted by the Investigating Officer to prove the identity of the driver. 11. PW.2 is stated to be the witness to the spot panchanama, has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. 12. PW.3 was the pillion rider. He has supported the case of the prosecution. He further stated that immediately after the incident, the driver ran away from the spot. 13. PW.4 stated to be the independent witness. He deposed that he had seen the accused in the police station. Regarding the identity of the accused is concerned, he stated that the accused is the person who ran away from the spot. 14. PW.5 was working as a Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector. He submitted his report after conducting inspection of the vehicle as per Ex.P4. 15. PW.6 was working as a Doctor. He had conducted medical examination of PW.1 and submitted the report as per Ex.P6. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2367 CRL.RP No. 200007 of 2020 16. PW.7 was working as a Police Inspector. He is stated to have conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet. 17. On careful reading of the entire complaint and its averments and also the evidence of PWs.1 and 3, who are stated to be the eyewitnesses, there are contradictions in identifying the accused. According to PW.1, the accused was present after the accident. However, the evidence of PWs.2 and 4 would indicate that the accused ran away from the spot soon after the accident. 18. Be that as it may, the identity of the accused must be established on conducting proper identification parade. However, in this case, the prosecution has not conducted the identification parade. Moreover, the witnesses to the spot mahazar has not supported the case of the prosecution. Such being the fact, rendering the conviction, on assuming that the petitioner was working as a driver, in my considered view, is not proper and relevant. Therefore, the said conviction rendered by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 19. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:- - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2367 CRL.RP No. 200007 of 2020 ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 05.11.2018 passed in C.C.No.2555/2013 by the V Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Kalaburagi and the judgment and order dated 21.10.2019 passed in Crl.A. No.76/2018 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi, are set aside. (iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences under Sections 279, 338, 304-A of IPC and Section 187 of IMV Act. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NB/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 CT:PK