- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34194 CRL.RP No. 436 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 436 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SRI A RAMESH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS SON OF SRI VENKATARAVANAPPA TEMPO DRIVER RESIDING AT NO.880, I MAIN ROAD, ATTUR LAYOUT, YELAHANKA , BANGALORE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M D ALAVANDAR., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY CHINTAMANI RURAL POLICE STATION- 563125. …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 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., CHIKKABALLAPURA (SITTING AT CHINTAMANI) ON 08.10.2015 IN CRL.A.NO.73/2014 DISMISSING THE SAID APPEAL AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 24.11.2014 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI IN C.C.NO.511/2012 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED. Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34194 CRL.RP No. 436 of 2016 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER The petitioner is convicted for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 of IPC; to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 338 of IPC and to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.8,000/- for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. 2. The Trial Court also directed payment of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation to the legal representatives of the victim and Rs.2,000/- to the prosecution witness-2. On an appeal filed by the accused, the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal confirming the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34194 CRL.RP No. 436 of 2016 conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present petition by the accused. 3. The prosecution case is as under : On 14.05.2011 at about 01.20 p.m., the accused was driving the Tempo 407 bearing Registration No.KA.50.1349. The accused drove the vehicle in high speed and in rash and negligent manner and, dashed against the Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA.07.K-8044. The accused drove the vehicle on the right side of Cuddappah- Bangalore Road near Kendanahalli and, due to the said accident, the rider of the aforesaid bike died and the pillion rider sustained injury. 4. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be innocent. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses in support of its case and produced 9 documents. The prosecution has examined 4 witnesses who according to the prosecution are the eye witnesses. The Investigating Officer has also been examined. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34194 CRL.RP No. 436 of 2016 5. The Trial Court found that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused for the offence referred to above. 6. On appeal by the accused, the Sessions Court did not find any reasons to interfere with the judgment passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that the sketch produced by the prosecution, marked at Ex.P.5, itself would reveal that the Tempo was proceeding on the left side of the highway and the Bike dashed against the Tempo by proceeding on the right side of the road. Thus, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court could not have held that the petitioner/accused was negligent. 8. It is his further submission that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have not stated anything about the negligence on the part of the petitioner. Three witnesses, who are said to be the eye witnesses, have only spoken about the high speed and, not about the rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34194 CRL.RP No. 436 of 2016 9. It is his further submission that none of the eye witnesses has tried to improve the case by making a statement that the petitioner tried to overtake the bus and drove the tempo on the right side of the road. It is stated that this statement was not found in the complaint as well as in the statements recorded on behalf of witnesses named in the charge sheet. Thus, it is the contention that these vital aspects have been completely ignored by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and both Courts erroneously concluded that the petitioner was guilty of the offences alleged. 10. Learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand, would submit that the prosecution has established the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is his case that four persons, who are the eye witnesses have been examined to prove the guilt of the accused and the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have thoroughly analysed the evidence on record and rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner/accused is guilty of the offences. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34194 CRL.RP No. 436 of 2016 11. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 12. It is indeed true that the prosecution has examined 4 witnesses who are said to be the eye witnesses. PW.1 is said to be the pillion rider of the bike which the deceased was riding. In the examination-in-chief, PW.1 has stated that the accused was driving the Tempo in high speed and dashed against the Bike in which PW.1 was a pillion rider. In the examination-in-chief, PW.1 has not stated anything about the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Tempo. It is also noticed in the cross examination he has admitted that he was not in a position to say the speed at which the bike was proceeding. Thereafter, PW.2, who is also said to be the eye witness, is examined. It is the case of the prosecution that PW.2 was traveling in another bike, which was proceeding behind the Bike which met with the accident. The examination-in-chief would reveal that except making a statement that the driver of the Tempo was driving the Tempo in high speed, nothing is stated about the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34194 CRL.RP No. 436 of 2016 Tempo. In the cross examination, PW.2 has denied the brake mark on the road and he has stated that the driver of the Tempo. 13. PW.3 is said to be another eye witness who was traveling along with PW.2. He has also stated in the examination-in-chief that the driver of the Tempo was driving the Tempo in high speed. Again, there is no evidence regarding rash and negligent act of the driver of the Tempo. In the cross examination, he has tried to make out a case that the driver of the Tempo tried to over take the Bus which was moving ahead of the said Tempo. He has further stated that the Bus was moving at a speed of 50 km. per hour. It is relevant to notice that none of the witnesses has stated that the driver of the Tempo has made an attempt to overtake the bus ahead of it. This is the statement made by PW.3 in the cross examination for the first time. Even in the examination-in-chief PW3 has not stated so. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34194 CRL.RP No. 436 of 2016 14. The complaint also does not reveal that the driver of the Tempo made an attempt to overtake the Bus which was moving ahead of it. 15. Now the question is, "Whether the version of PW.3 that the driver of the Tempo tried to overtake the bus is correct or not?" 16. This has to be tested with the sketch- Ex.P.5, prepared revealing the place of accident. This Court has perused the said sketch. The said sketch would reveal that the road is sufficiently wide enough and the accident has taken place not at the Centre, but on the left side of the road from Bengaluru to Cuddapah. It is the case of the prosecution that the Tempo was proceeding from Bengaluru towards Cuddapah. If that is the case, this Court has to take a view that, accident has taken place on the left side of the road in which the Tempo was moving. In other words, the Bike Rider was riding his Bike on the right side of the road, proceeding from Cuddappah to Bengaluru. The sketch- Ex.P.5 totally nullifies the statement of PW.3 who has stated - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34194 CRL.RP No. 436 of 2016 that the Tempo driver tried to overtake the Bus which was moving ahead of it. 17. Thus, there is a contradiction in the evidence led by PW.3 and the sketch marked at Ex.P.5. Unfortunately, these aspects have not been considered by the Trial Court and the Sessions Court. As already noticed, there is no evidence relating to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Tempo, but the witnesses have stated only regarding the high speed. 18. It is well-settled principle of law that, high speed alone is not the criteria to hold that the person was riding/driving the vehicle rashly or negligently. It is an admitted fact that the alleged accident took place on a Highway. Unless, the prosecution establishes that, the alleged speedy driving on the part of the driver of the Tempo also amounted to rash and negligent act on his part, in the circumstances prevailing at the time of accident, one cannot conclude that it is a case of rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Tempo. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34194 CRL.RP No. 436 of 2016 19. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgments are not sustainable and have to be set aside. Hence, the following : ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed; (ii) The judgment and order dated 08.10.2015 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura (sitting at Chintamani) in Crl.A.No.73/2014 and the judgment and sentence dated 24.11.2014 passed by the Additional JMFC, Chintamani in C.C.No.511/ 2012 are set aside; iii) The accused is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. iv) The bail bonds stands cancelled. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE rs List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20