- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4056 CRL.RP No. 200060 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200060 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN MOHD AFROZ S/O MOHD MAHEMOOD JAMPADWALE, AGE.29 YRS, OCC.DRIVER R/O VILLAGE ANDOOR, TQ AND DIST. BIDAR – 584 101 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI, GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH TRAFFIC POLICE STATION HUMNABAD, TQ AND DIST.BIDAR ITS REP. BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, KALABURAGI – 585 107 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUMNABAD IN C.C.NO.156/2016 DATED 30.03.2019, CONFIRMED BY THE II ADDL. DIST AND SESSION JUDGE AT BIDAR, BASAVAKALYAN, IN CRL.APPEAL.NO.39/2019 DATED 19.08.2020 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM THEREIN FOR THE SAKE OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.03.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH, COMING Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4056 CRL.RP No. 200060 of 2020 ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) This criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence dated 19.08.2020 in Crl.A.No.39/2019 by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, Basavakalyan. 2. The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as per their rankings before the Trial Court, for convenience. Factual matrix of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 19.11.2014, in the afternoon when the complainant was in his house, somebody had informed him that his brother Dhulappa and relative Prabhu had met with an accident on Bidar road. On receiving the said information, he immediately went to the spot and after enquiry, he came to know that around 11.45 A.M the said Dhulappa along with Prabhu were proceeding on a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4056 CRL.RP No. 200060 of 2020 motor cycle bearing registration No.MBLHA10AMHH68461 from Housing Board Colony to Dhummansur on N.H-9 on Humnabad- Bidar Road and when they reached near Valmiki Chowk, at that time one Tipper-Lorry bearing registration No.JH-05-J-5617 came from Bidar side driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle and fled away from the spot. In the said accident his brother Dhulappa has sustained grievous injuries on his forehead and face and also other parts of the body. Pillion rider Prabhu has also sustained grievous injuries. Both were shifted to the hospital in the ambulance. The said Dhulappa had died in the hospital and pillion rider Prabhu also died due to the said injuries. 4. On registration of the case, the respondent-Police have conducted investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution in his evidence has examined 08 witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked 17 documents as Ex-P.1 to P.17. On the other hand Ex-D.1 has been marked by the accused. The Trial Court recorded the conviction for the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4056 CRL.RP No. 200060 of 2020 offences punishable under Section 279, 304(A) of IPC and Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Ganesh Naik and learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. Jamadar Shahabuddin for respondents. 7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the Trial Court are erroneous and the same is opposed to the evidence on record. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 8. It is further submitted that the prosecution examined 08 witnesses. P.W.3 and 4 are stated to be the eye-witnesses to the incident. They did not support the case. However, the evidence of other witnesses has also not been considered properly. When the evidence of eye-witnesses are not supported to the case of the prosecution, recording the conviction cannot be sustained. However, the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly and recorded the conviction which is required to be set aside. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4056 CRL.RP No. 200060 of 2020 9. Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for State vehemently justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below and he further submitted that the evidence of eyewitnesses has partially supported the case of the prosecution. However, the fact remains that the vehicle which caused accident was there at the spot and it was seized by the respondent-Police. Based on the statement of the owner of the Tipper-Lorry, the accused has been traced and identified. A case has been registered against him. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the Appellate Court and Trial Court are proper and there is no reason to interfere with the said findings. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, it is appropriate to refer the evidence of all the witnesses in brief for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether or not the Courts below have committed error in appreciating the evidence and applying the principle of law. 11. P.W.1 being a complainant obviously stated about the accident, however, he is not an eyewitness to the incident. P.W.2 stated to be the witness to spot panchanama, the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4056 CRL.RP No. 200060 of 2020 panchanama is marked as Ex-P.2. He stated that he was present at the spot when the spot panchanama was drawn, and he also stated that he and Manik Reddy have affixed their signatures on the spot panchanama and supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.3 stated to be another witness, he is an independent witness to the said incident. He stated to be eye-witness to the incident. He further deposed that he was standing near Valmiki Chowk and witnessed the accident. According to him, the accused ran away from the spot after the accident. In the cross-examination he admitted that, Shamanna was his friend and he further admitted that he was not aware about the fault of the vehicle of which the accident had occurred. 12. P.W.4 is stated to be the eyewitness to the incident. He also deposes that he and Sangappa both have witnessed the accident while going near Valmiki Chowk. According to him a Tipper-Lorry came from Bidar side, dashed the motor cycle which was coming from Housing Board Colony and caused accident. As a result of which the injured have died in their respective hospitals. He deposed that the accident occurred due - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4056 CRL.RP No. 200060 of 2020 to fault of the Tipper-Lorry. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he was working as an auto driver. 13. On over all reading of these witnesses, none of the witness have spoken about the identity of the driver and also even the Investigation Officer did not examine the owner of the Tipper-Lorry to ascertain as to who was driving the said lorry as on the date of accident. However, P.W.3 and 4 even though stated to be the eye-witnesses to the incident, did not state about the rash and negligent driving of the Tipper-Lorry. Such being the fact, recording the conviction for the above said offences in my considered view is not only erroneous, but also, it is a patent illegality. Therefore, it is appropriate to set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Courts below. 14. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence, dated 19.08.2020 passed in Crl.A.No.39/2019 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, is set aside. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4056 CRL.RP No. 200060 of 2020 iii. The petitioner is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) IPC and Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act. iv. Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2