- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27193 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1083 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHIVANANDAPPA, S/O KASSAPPA THONDIHAL 33 YEARS, KSRTC DRIVER, R/O MALAKASAMUDRA VILLAGE, YELLABURGA TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583236. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. MAHAMMED TAHIR, ADV. FOR SRI. VARUN J. PATIL., ADV.) AND: STATE BY HALAVAGALU POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CLR.RP BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2018, PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT DAVANGERE IN CRL.A.NO.129/2017, AND ALSO THEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.76/2016 (OLD C.C.NO.394/2015) DATED Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27193 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2018 30.10.2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HARAPANAHALLI FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 279,337 AND 338 OF IPC.) THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER The accused/revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 30th October 2017 passed in CC.No.76 of 2016 (old CC.No.394/2015) by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Harapanahalli (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') which is confirmed by the judgment dated 06th day of August, 2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.129 of 2017 by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate Court'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Facts leading to this revision petition are, Harapanahalli Police have filed charge sheet against the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27193 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2018 accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code. 4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 09th February 2015 at about 3.30 p.m. at G. Dadapura village cross near the land of Shankarappa on Harapanahalli-Harihara road the accused being the driver of KSRTC bearing Reg.No.KA- 17/F-1299 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner dashed to Yashaswini daughter of CW1, as a result, the child sustained injuries to right forehead, nose and right hand elbow and right leg and sustained simple and grievous injuries. Thus, committed the alleged offences. 5. After filing charge sheet, the jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The case was registered in CC.No.76/2016 (old CC.No.394/2015) and in response to summons, accused appeared before the Trial Court and enlarged on bail. The substance of plea was recorded. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove the guilt of the accused, out of twelve witnesses cited, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27193 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2018 PWs1 to 10 and eleven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. 7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, in default, to undergo 45 days of imprisonment. Further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, to undergo 45 days of imprisonment and further to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code, in default, to undergo 45 days of imprisonment. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused preferred appeal before the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Davangere in Criminal Appeal No.129 of 2017 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27193 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2018 and the same came to be dismissed on 06th August, 2018. Being aggrieved by the judgments of both the Courts, the accused has preferred this revision petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. It is further submitted that PW1-Kanthesh, conductor of the bus has not supported the case of prosecution. He deposed that he did not have the information with regard to the vehicle which is responsible for the occurrence of accident. He also deposed that the injured-Yashaswini sustained accidental injuries by another vehicle at the relevant point of time and thereafter, they shifted the injured to the hospital in their bus. It is his further submission that PW2-Sripathy and PW5- Smt.Shashirekha, parents of the injured, have not deposed anything as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus. None of the inmates of the bus are examined by prosecution. The wound certificate has also not been marked by the prosecution. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27193 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2018 9. Further, it is submitted that, though there is no evidence as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the bus, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the alleged offence and the Appellate Court has also not properly appreciated the evidence on record and upheld the judgment of the Trial Court which is not sustainable under law. On all these grounds, he sought to allow this revision petition. 10. As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader Smt. N Anitha Girish, would submit that, both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court and accordingly, sought to dismiss this revision petition. 11. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of records, the following point would arise for my consideration: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27193 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2018 "Whether the judgment and order of the Tribunal is perverse, capricious and suffers from legal infirmities?" 12. I have examined the materials placed before me. The investigating officer has cited twelve witnesses in the charge-sheet, out of them, prosecution has examined ten witnesses as PWs1 to 10 and marked eleven documents as Exhibits P1 to P11. As per charge-sheet, Sripathy complainant is examined as PW2. The content of complaint is as under: "£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, £À£ÀUÉ 1 UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄUÀÄ, 2 ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 9.2.15 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß JgÀqÀ£Éà ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ AiÀıÀ¹é¤ EªÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ºÀgÀ¥À£ÀºÀ½î ºÉÆÃV PÉ®¸À ªÀÄÄV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì ºÀgÀ¥À£ÀºÀ½î¬ÄAzÀ G. zÁzÀ¥ÀÄgÀÄPÉÌ §gÀ®Ä G. zÁzÀ¥ÀÄgÀ PÁæ¸ï£À°è E½zÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä HjUÉ £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ, ºÀgÀ¥À£ÀºÀ½î PÀqɬÄAzÀ §AzÀ §¸ïì ZÁ®PÀ »AzÀÄUÀqɬÄAzÀ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ rQÌ ºÉÆqÉ¢zÀÝjAzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PɼÀUÀqÉ ©¢ÝzÀÝjAzÀ §® ºÀuÉUÉ PÀtÄÚ, ªÀÄÆUÀÄ, ºÉÆmÉÖUÉ ¥ÉlÄÖ©zÀÄÝ gÀPÀÛUÁAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. vÀPÀët CzÉà KSRTC §¹ì£À°è vÉ®V C¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV aQvÉì PÉÆr¹ £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÉaÑ£À aQvÉìUÁV S.S. D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ zÁR°¹zɪÀÅ. £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ C¥ÀWÁvÀ¥Àr¹zÀ KSRTC §¸ïì £ÀA. KA-17-F- 1299. ZÁ®PÀ£À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ²ªÀ£ÀAzÀ¥Àà. EªÀgÀÄ Cw ªÉÃUÀ ºÁUÀÄ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvɬÄAzÀ §¸ïì ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ rQÌ ºÉÆqɹzÀªÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÁå PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV£À¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉýPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¥Àr¹zÁUÀ ¸ÀAeÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 3.30 ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀĪÁVvÀÄÛ." - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27193 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2018 13. As per the complaint, accident occurred on 9th February 2015. The time of accident is not shown in the complaint. However in the First Information Report-exhibit P 11, time of accident is shown as 15.30 hours and the complaint came to be filed on 10th February 2015 at 6.00 pm. On the basis of the complaint, case came to be registered in Crime No.13 of 2015, for the offence punishable Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code against the driver of KSRTC bus and submitted FIR to the court. 14. PW2-Sripathy has reiterated as to the averments made in the complaint. 15. PW3-Bharmappa and PW4-Shantappa, said to be attesters to mahazar, have deposed as to the mahazar conducted by the Police, as per Exhibits P2 and P3 and also as to preparation of sketch. 16. PW5, Smt. Shashirekha the mother of the injured, has deposed in her evidence that about a year back one day at about 3:30 pm when they were proceeding near Dadapura Cross, Machehalli, at that time one KSRTC came in high speed from Harapanahalli side and hit to her daughter, as a result, she - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27193 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2018 has sustained injuries on her head, right eye, hands, legs and waist. In the same bus, she shifted the injured to the SS Hospital, Davanagere, and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus. 17. PW6-K.L. Thippeswamy, PW9-Lalitamma, and PW10- Manjunatha, Police officials, have deposed as to their respective investigation. 18. PW7-Bharamappa, Controller, KSRTC has deposited that the accused-Shivanna was the driver of the bus as on the date of accident, and he has executed Indemnity Bond and got released the bus. 19. PW8-Parameshwarappa, Depot Manager, KSRTC, has deposed as to the issuance of Certificate Exhibit P10. 20. PW1-Kantesh, Conductor of the bus said to the eye- witness, has not supported the case of prosecution. 21. The material witnesses PWs2 & 5 parents of the injured have not deposed as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the bus. But they have deposed that the bus came from backside and hit to their daughter. If really, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27193 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2018 the bus had hit the five year old child, that too in a high speed, the bus would have run over on the child, but the child has sustained injuries to her right eye, nose, and abdomen. The wound certificate is also not marked by the prosecution. Motor vehicle inspection report reveals that there is no visible damages found on the bus during inspection. The case sheet maintained by the concerned Hospital is also not produced by the prosecution. Delay in filing the complaint is also not explained. On re-examination and re-evaluation of the entire material placed before me, I do not find any essential ingredient to construe offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code. Both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with facts and convicted the accused which is not sustainable under law. Hence, I answer point arose for consideration one in the affirmative. Resultantly, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Criminal revision petition is allowed; ii) Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 30th October, 2017 passed in CC.No.76 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27193 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2018 of 2016 (old CC.No.394/2015) by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Harappanahalli which is confirmed by II Additional District & Sessions Judge at Davanagere in Criminal Appeal No.129 of 2017, dated 6th August 2018, are set aside; iii) Accused is acquitted of the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code; iv) Fine amount paid by the accused be refunded to him; v) Registry to send the trial court records along with copy of this order to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE SSD/lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30