- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100016 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. SANTOSH S/O. PARAMESHAPPA BISALAHALLI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/ATTENDER, R/O: CHIKKANAJI, TALUK: BYADGI, DISTRICT: HAVERI-581106. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RAJASHREE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KAGINELE POLICE STATION, BY ASPP HCB, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND MAY EXCISE THE INHERENT POWERS BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 08.11.2019 PASSED BY THE SECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.149/2018, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 06.10.2018 IN C.C.NO.118/2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BYADGI, WHEREIN THE ACCUSED/THE PRESENT PETITIONER IS CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 279, 337, 304(A) OF I.P.C. AND ETC.,. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIHG COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Smt. Rajashree, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 2. The present revision petition is filed by the accused-petitioner challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2018 passed in C.C. No.118/2017 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Byadagi (for short, ‘the trial Court’), and the judgment dated 08.11.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.149/2018 by the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur (for short, ‘the appellate Court’). 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.03.2015, at about 7:00 p.m., the accused, while riding a TVS XL motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/U- 6389, dashed against the complainant and one Dadapeer from behind. As a result, the complainant sustained - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2020 grievous injuries, and Dadapeer succumbed to the injuries at KMC, Hubballi. 4. The prosecution filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), and Sections 3 and 143 read with Sections 181 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’). 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and marked 23 documents as Exhibits P1 to P23. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. The trial Court, based on the evidence of PW-5, one of the injured survivors, held that the accused committed the charged offences. It further relied on Exhibit P8 (the complaint dated 12.03.2015) and Exhibit P6 (the post-mortem report) to conclude that the death - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2020 resulted from the injuries sustained. Based on the foregoing evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the IPC and imposed simple imprisonment for 30 days and a fine of Rs. 500 for offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, simple imprisonment for 30 days and a fine of Rs. 250 for offence under Section 337 IPC, and simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 3,000 for offence under Section 304-A of IPC. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.149/2018. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, confirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal. 8. Smt. Rajashree, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, submits that the alleged accident occurred on 11.03.2015 at about 7:00 p.m., whereas the complaint at Exhibit P8 was registered on 12.03.2015 at - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2020 about 8:45 p.m., upon receipt of the MLC intimation from the hospital. It is contended that there is an unexplained delay of nearly 24 hours in lodging the complaint. Learned counsel further submits that, according to the prosecution, the accused allegedly dashed against the complainant and the deceased. However, as per Exhibit P15, the complainant sustained only abrasion injuries. 8.1 It is further submitted that, according to Exhibit P5-the post-mortem report, the cause of death was respiratory failure resulting from head injuries. Learned counsel contends that the prosecution has failed to establish that the deceased sustained injuries in the alleged accident and that death ensued as a result of such injuries. In this regard, it is pointed out that no medical records pertaining to the treatment of the deceased have been produced. Even assuming that the death was due to injuries, the prosecution has not proved that such injuries were sustained in the alleged accident involving the accused. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2020 9. On the other hand, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that PW-5-the complainant, was walking along with the deceased at the time of the incident and sustained injuries along with the deceased. It is submitted that PW-5, as reflected in Exhibit P8, has provided a consistent and complete account of the incident, and no material contradictions were elicited in cross-examination to discredit his testimony. Hence, it is contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on properly appreciated and established evidence. 10. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the material on record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2020 11. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.03.2015, at about 7:00 p.m., the accused, while riding his TVS XL motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/U- 6389, dashed against the complainant and one Dadapeer from behind. It is further alleged that Dadapeer sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on 16.03.2015. To establish the cause of death, the prosecution has relied upon Exhibit P6-the post-mortem report. 11.1 According to Ex.P6-the post-mortem report, the cause of death of Dadapeer is attributed to respiratory failure resulting from head injuries sustained. Ex.P6, however, merely establishes the medical cause of death. What is crucial is whether such injuries were sustained in the alleged accident. 12. The prosecution alleges that the accident occurred on 11.03.2015 at about 7:00 p.m., during which Dadapeer suffered grievous injuries and was shifted to the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2020 hospital. The complainant-PW.5 also sustained injuries in the said incident. However, despite the alleged accident and the injured being taken to the hospital, no FIR was registered on 11.03.2015. It was only on 12.03.2015, at about 8:45 p.m., that the complainant visited the hospital for treatment, an MLC was prepared, and thereafter the complaint, as per Ex.P8, was recorded and the FIR registered. 13. The prosecution has offered no explanation as to what transpired between 7:00 p.m. on 11.03.2015 and 8:45 p.m. on 12.03.2015. It is recorded that Dadapeer died on 16.03.2015 while allegedly under treatment. However, no medical records have been produced to establish that he was, in fact, receiving treatment during this period. This omission assumes significance in light of the fact that the circumstantial evidence on record does not conclusively connect the accident to the injuries that allegedly caused the death. This failure on the part of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2020 prosecution lends credence to the defence version that the accused has been falsely implicated. 14. The trial Court and the appellate Court, without taking the aforesaid aspects into consideration, committed an error in placing undue reliance on the evidence of PWs.5 and 8, as well as Exs.P6 and P8, to conclude that the death of Dadapeer was caused by head injuries sustained in the alleged accident. The evidence placed on record by the prosecution is neither sufficient nor reliable to sustain the conviction of the accused. The findings recorded by both the trial Court and the appellate Court suffer from a lack of proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. 15. This Court is of the considered view that the judgments of both the Courts below suffers from infirmity and misappreciation of evidence and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 16. Accordingly, the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2020 ORDER i. The criminal revision petition is allowed. ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 06.10.2018 passed in C.C. No.118/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Byadagi and the judgment dated 08.11.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.149/2018 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur, are hereby set aside. iii. The accused is acquitted of all charged offences. iv. The fine amount if any, shall be refunded to the accused-petitioner. v. Bail bonds and sureties, if any, stand cancelled. Registry to return the trial Court records along with a copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5