- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36409 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 998 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SRI SIDDARAJU, S/O MARAMBAIAHNA KALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, DRIVER OF KSRTC, RURAL DEPOT-I, MYSURU B NO.995, R/AT 318, B M STREET, HAAD LI HUCHAMMANA KERI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571430. …PETITIONER (BY MISS POOJA KATTIMANI, AMICUS CURIAE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY DEVARAJA TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, MYSURU, REP. BY STATE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 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 IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SEANTENCE PASSED BY THE III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIFE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MYSURU DATED 06.08.2014 IN C.C.NO.705/2012 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2017 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.181/2014 CONSEQUENT ACQUIT THE REVISION PETITIONER FROM THE CHARGES LEVELLED AGAINST HIM. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36409 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This Criminal Revision Petition is filed assailing the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 304A and 279 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 134(a)(b) and read with Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 (for short “IMV Act”). 2. The petitioner is convicted to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment for the said offence. For offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, one year simple imprisonment and Rs.5,000/-fine is imposed and additional one month simple imprisonment in case of failure to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. 3. And for the offence punishable under Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of IMV Act, a fine of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36409 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2017 Rs.1,000/- and also simple imprisonment of one week is imposed, in case of default to pay the fine amount referred to above. 4. On appeal filed by the accused, Appellate Court concurred with the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present petition before this Court. 5. The alleged incident took place on 17.10.2007 at about 05:15 p.m. at Albert Victor Road in Mysuru. The complaint is lodged by the Traffic Police who was said to be officiating on Albert Victor Road in Mysuru on the date of the incident. 6. Complainant states that P.W.8 - the rider of Honda Activa bike was riding the bike along with her mother towards K.R. Circle and the petitioner - driver of KSRTC bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Honda Activa bike while trying to overtake Honda - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36409 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2017 Activa bike and left side of the bus dashed Honda Activa bike and caused the accident. 7. It is alleged that both the pillion rider (mother of the rider) and the rider of the bike fell down and the pillion rider succumbed to the injuries at the hospital. 8. Accused did not plead guilty. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced 9 documents to substantiate the case. Accused did not lead any evidence on his behalf. As already noticed, the Trial Court convicted the accused rejecting the defence and Appellate Court also concurred with the said finding. 9. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner would submit that P.W.8 who was riding the Honda Activa bike on that day has stated in the cross-examination that she is not in a position to say whether the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of KSRTC bus. In her examination-in-chief, P.W.8 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36409 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2017 states that the driver of KSRTC bus driver tried to overtake Honda Activa soon after traffic signal turned green. The prosecution has treated P.W.8 - rider of the bike has hostile witness and cross-examined P.W.8. In the cross- examination, P.W.8 has stated that the bus has dashed against Honda Activa bike from the rear side. It is also stated in the cross-examination that before the accident, the rider of the bike i.e., P.W.8 has not noticed the bus coming and she came to know about the bus only after the bus hit the Honda Activa bike. 10. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner would also urge that P.W.9 who is said to be an eye-witness to the incident has not supported the case of the prosecution. She would refer to the cross-examination of P.W.9 and would submit that in the cross-examination, P.W.9 has admitted that there was no traffic signal at the place of accident. P.W.9 has stated that he is not in a position to say as to who was responsible for the accident. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36409 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2017 11. P.W.10 - who is said to be the Police Constable has stated in examination-in-chief that the KSRTC bus came in high speed and dashed against the two wheeler which was moving on the left side and caused the accident. However, in the cross-examination, he has stated that the accident took place as the bus came from the rear side. 12. Referring to the cross-examination of P.W.4 who is the complainant, it is submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae that the complainant has not seen the accident and he came to know about the accident only after he heard the sound of collision between two vehicles. 13. Referring to these circumstances, learned Amicus curiae would urge that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also urged that the Trial Court and Appellate Court have misread the evidence on record and erroneously came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the case. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36409 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2017 14. Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. Both the Honda Activa bike and the bus were at the traffic signal and when the green light was on, the driver of the bus without taking proper care and precaution tried to overtake the bike and in the process, dashed against the bike which resulted in the accident. 15. It is also his submission that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have supported the case of the prosecution. 16. In addition, learned High Court Government Pleader would also submit that despite the collision between Honda Activa bike and KSRTC bus, the driver of the bus did not stop the vehicle and he fled away from the scene and committed offence under Section 134 (a) and (b) read with Section 187 of IMV Act. Thus, urged that the Trial Court and Appellate Court are justified in convicting and sentencing the accused. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36409 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2017 17. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 18. The sketch relating to the place of accident is marked at Ex.P6. It is noticed from Ex.P6 that the road is sufficiently wide and measures about 95 feet and there is foot path on either side of the road. From the accident spot, it appears that the width of the road is around 20 feet towards the nearest foot path from left side. Both the vehicles were proceeding towards K.R. Circle. 19. As rightly contended by the learned Amicus Curiae, P.W.9 who is said to be one of the eye-witnesses to the said accident has made a categorical statement as under: “ಸದ ಸದ ಸದ ಸದ ಅಪತ ಅಪತ ಅಪತ ಅಪತ ಚಕ ಾಹನದ ಚಕ ಾಹನದ ಚಕ ಾಹನದ ಚಕ ಾಹನದ ಸ ಾರರ ಸ ಾರರ ಸ ಾರರ ಸ ಾರರ ತಂದ ತಂದ ತಂದ ತಂದ ಆೆ ಆೆ ಆೆ ಆೆ ಬನ ಬನ ಬನ ಬನ ಾಲಕನ ಾಲಕನ ಾಲಕನ ಾಲಕನ ತಂದ ತಂದ ತಂದ ತಂದ ಆೆ ಆೆ ಆೆ ಆೆ ಅಂದೆ ಅಂದೆ ಅಂದೆ ಅಂದೆ ಾರ ಾರ ಾರ ಾರ ತಂದ ತಂದ ತಂದ ತಂದ ಆೆ ಆೆ ಆೆ ಆೆ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ನನ#ೆ ನನ#ೆ ನನ#ೆ ನನ#ೆ $ೇಳ'ಾಗುವ* $ೇಳ'ಾಗುವ* $ೇಳ'ಾಗುವ* $ೇಳ'ಾಗುವ*ಲ+ ಲ+ ಲ+ ಲ+ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ,ಾ- ,ಾ- ,ಾ- ,ಾ- $ೇಳ./ಾ0ೆ $ೇಳ./ಾ0ೆ $ೇಳ./ಾ0ೆ $ೇಳ./ಾ0ೆ.” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36409 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2017 20. P.W.8 - the rider of the bike has stated in examination-in-chief that front left side of the bus has hit against the left side of the bike. She was treated hostile witness by the prosecution. In the cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.8 has denied the suggestion put by the prosecution, wherein it is suggested that bus came from right side and dashed against the bike. The witness has stated that the bus after completing Circle came from the rear side and dashed against the bike. Thus, it is noticed that P.W.8 - the rider of the bike has not supported her own version in the examination-in-chief. 21. It is also noticed that P.W.8 has stated in the cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing for the accused as under: “1ಾನು 1ಾನು 1ಾನು 1ಾನು ಅಪತದ ಅಪತದ ಅಪತದ ಅಪತದ 2ದಲು 2ದಲು 2ದಲು 2ದಲು ಬಸು ಬಸು ಬಸು ಬಸು ಬರುವ*ದನು3 ಬರುವ*ದನು3 ಬರುವ*ದನು3 ಬರುವ*ದನು3 1ೋ5ರುವ*ಲ+ 1ೋ5ರುವ*ಲ+ 1ೋ5ರುವ*ಲ+ 1ೋ5ರುವ*ಲ+ ನಮ#ೆ ನಮ#ೆ ನಮ#ೆ ನಮ#ೆ ಬನು3 ಬನು3 ಬನು3 ಬನು3 ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು 578ಪ5ದ 578ಪ5ದ 578ಪ5ದ 578ಪ5ದ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ಬಸು ಬಸು ಬಸು ಬಸು ಬಂದ ಬಂದ ಬಂದ ಬಂದ 9ಷಯ 9ಷಯ 9ಷಯ 9ಷಯ ನನ#ೆ ನನ#ೆ ನನ#ೆ ನನ#ೆ #ೊ/ಾ0<ತು #ೊ/ಾ0<ತು #ೊ/ಾ0<ತು #ೊ/ಾ0<ತು” 22. This statement in the cross-examination would indicate that the bus was not coming on the right side as - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36409 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2017 stated in the examination-in-chief. It is also relevant to notice the contents of the complaint, which is filed by the Traffic Police. There is no averment in the complaint that complainant has seen the occurrence of the accident. From the contents of the complaint, it is evident that the complainant has seen the vehicles only after accident occurred. It is also stated so in the cross-examination. 23. P.W.10 - the person who is said to be Traffic Police on that day, in the examination-in-chief has stated that the bus came from the right side and dashed against the bike which was moving on the left side. In the cross- examination, he states that the bike was ahead and bus came from left side and left side of the bus dashed against the bike. 24. In the cross-examination, it has been suggested to him as to whether he has made a statement before the Police that the driver of the bus drove the bus ignoring the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36409 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2017 red light at the Circle. In the cross-examination, he has disputed having made such statement. 25. This Court after analyzing the evidence on record is of the view that the prosecution is able to establish that the accident took place on 17.10.2007 around 05:15 p.m. between the KSRTC bus and Honda Activa. It is also forthcoming that petitioner was the driver of the bus at the time of the accident. P.W.8 who is cross-examined was the rider of the bike. 26. However, on overall appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court does not find any evidence to hold beyond reasonable doubt that the driver of the KSRTC bus was rash and negligent in causing the accident. 27. P.W.9 who is said to be one of the eye-witnesses to the incident states that he is not in a position to say as to who was at fault in causing the accident. P.W.8 - the rider of the bike has not supported the case of the prosecution and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36409 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2017 she has given inconsistent statement in the examination-in- chief and in the cross-examination by the prosecution. 28. The evidence of P.W.4 is not material as he has not seen the occurrence of the accident. He has come to the spot only after the occurrence of the accident. 29. Remaining evidence i.e., the evidence of panchas who have drawn spot panchanama is not good enough to hold anything on the alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. 30. The Trial Court has proceeded to hold that the petitioner is guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC on the basis of the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.10. 31. It is borne-out from the record that evidence of P.W.8 as already discussed does not support the case of the prosecution and there is inconsistency. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36409 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2017 32. As far as evidence of P.W.10 is concerned, he has only stated that the accident took place when KSRTC bus driver tried to overtake the Honda Activa bike. 33. This Court is of the view after considering the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the petitioner relating to the rash and negligent act beyond reasonable doubt. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court could not have convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. 34. As far as Appellate Court is concerned, it has concluded that the discrepancies and contradictions pointed out by the accused were minor contradictions and discrepancies and they have to be ignored. Appellate Court has relied upon evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.10 to come to the conclusion that the accused is guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36409 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2017 35. This Court has perused the evidence of P.W.4, and as already discussed, the evidence of P.W.4 does not indicate any guilt on the part of the petitioner. P.W.4 is the complainant who was said to be the Police Constable on duty near the place of the accident. In his cross-examination, he has clearly stated that he has not seen the accident and he came to know about the accident only after he heard the sound of collision. This would clearly establish that PW.4 is not the person who has seen the accident and who is in a position to give evidence relating to alleged incident on the part of the petitioner. 36. Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the evidence of P.Ws.8 to 10 are inconsistent to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, Appellate Court could not have come to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36409 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2017 37. The next question is whether the Trial Court and Appellate Court were justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of IMV Act. Section 134(a) and (b) of IMV Act reads as under: "134. Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person.-When any person is injured or any property of a third party is damaged, as a result of an accident in which a motor vehicle is involved, the driver of the vehicle or other person in charge of the vehicle shall (a)unless it is not practicable to do so on account of mob fury or any other reason beyond his control, take all reasonable steps to secure medical attention for the injured person, [by conveying him to the nearest medical practitioner or hospital, and it shall be the duty of every registered medical practitioner or the doctor on the duty in the hospital immediately to attend to the injured person and render medical aid or treatment without waiting for any procedural formalities], unless the injured person or his guardian, in case he is a minor, desires otherwise; (b)give on demand by a police officer any information required by him, or, if no police officer is present, report the circumstances of the occurrence, including the circumstances, if any, for not taking reasonable steps to secure medical attention as required under clause (a), at the nearest police station as soon as possible, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence;" 38. Section 134(a) of IMV Act imposes the duty on the driver of the vehicle or the person in charge of the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36409 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2017 vehicle to take reasonable steps to secure medical treatment to the person injured. Section 134(b) also imposes obligation on the driver of the vehicle or the person in charge of the vehicle to give information to the Police and report the circumstances of the occurrence of the accident. 39. Section 187 of IMV Act prescribes punishment for the offences under Sections 132, 133 and 134. The punishment prescribed is imprisonment for a term which shall extend up to three months’ or fine of Rs.500/- or with both. The Section also provides that in case, the accused is already convicted previously for the offence under Sections 132, 133 and 134 of IMV Act, then the imprisonment may extend by 6 months or with fine which may extend to Rs.1000/- or with both. 40. As already noticed by this Court, the prosecution has established the fact that KSRTC bus driven by the petitioner /accused was involved in the accident. It is not the case of the petitioner that he stopped the vehicle and he - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36409 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2017 informed the incident to the Police and he made an attempt to take the injured to the hospital for medical assistance. The allegation that he did not stop the vehicle there and fled away from the scene of accident is not disputed in the cross- examination. 41. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the offence punishable under Sections 134 (a) and (b) of IMV Act is established and accused is to be sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 187 of IMV Act. 42. This Court has noticed that the Trial Court has sentenced the accused to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Sections 134 (a) and (b) read with Section 187 of IMV Act and imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for one week in case of default. 43. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 187 of IMV Act earlier to the present prosecution. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36409 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2017 This being the position, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court could not have imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- without there being any previous conviction, as maximum fine is only Rs.500/-. This aspect is not noticed by the Trial Court and also the Appellate Court. 44. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment dated 30.06.2017 in Crl.A.No.181/2014 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge and the judgment dated 06.08.2014 in C.C.No.705/2012 on the file of JMFC, Mysuru are set-aside in part. (iii) The conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code are set-aside. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36409 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2017 (iv) The conviction and sentence imposed under Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act is modified. Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/-if not paid already, failing which the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. (v) Accused is acquitted of charges under Section 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. (vi) Registry shall pay Rs.15,000/- to the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner. SD/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 52 ..