- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3457 CRL.RP No. 200001 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200001 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN SHRI.BASHASAB S/O KARIMSAB MULLA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC: DRIVER, R/O HAMAL COLONY DIST. VIJAYAPUR ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S. S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATES) AND THE STATE OF KARNAKATA THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR TRAFFIC POLICE, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADVOCATE GENERAL’S OFFICE HIGH COURT BUILDING KALABURAGI-585 107 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SEC.401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.11.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR, IN CRL.A.NO.41/2016 AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.07.2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-1 VIJAYAPUR, IN C C NO.2449/2014. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.03.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3457 CRL.RP No. 200001 of 2018 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) 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner / accused, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 21.07.2016 in C.C.No.2449/2014 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC-I Court, Vijaypur and the judgment and order dated 14.11.2017 in Crl.A.No.41/2016 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura. 2. The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court henceforth will be considered accordingly for convenience. Factual matrix of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 19.12.2013 at about 07.00 p.m., on Darga old ring road, Pandarapura cross, Vijayapura, the accused being the driver of the tipper vehicle bearing its registration No.KA-28-B-8866, was driving the said vehicle from Solapur bypass towards Khwaja Ameen Darga, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle bearing its registration - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3457 CRL.RP No. 200001 of 2018 No.KA-28-R-9077, which was being driven by Suresh Roopsingh Naik, consequently, the said person fell down and sustained grievous injuries and later, he succumbed to the said injuries in the hospital. As the accused did not inform the said incident to the nearest police station, the complainant lodged a complaint against Bashasab Mulla on 21.12.2013. Based on the complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered a case in Crime No.204/2013 and after conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet for the offences under Sections 279, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’). 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined 9 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded the conviction for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Sections 134 and 187 of the MV Act. On appeal being filed, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3457 CRL.RP No. 200001 of 2018 Court. The Appellate Court set aside the conviction in respect of Section 279 of IPC and ordered that the other sentences to be maintained as per the findings of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 5. Heard Sri S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and its modification order passed by the Appellate Court are perverse and illegal and also against to the evidence on record. Therefore, the said conviction is liable to be set aside. 7. It is further submitted that, when the Appellate Court arrived at a conclusion that the vehicle was not being driven in a rash and negligent manner and the conviction in respect of the offence under Section 279 of IPC is set aside, the conviction in respect of Section 304A of IPC cannot be sustained. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3457 CRL.RP No. 200001 of 2018 8. It is further submitted that, rash and negligent driving must result in causing either simple or grievous injury or causing death of a person. Even if the vehicle is driven with high speed, that itself cannot be construed as rash and negligent act of the driver, unless, it is established by the prosecution that the said vehicle was being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner. When such being the fact, maintaining the conviction in respect of the offence under Section 304A of IPC is erroneous and illegal. Therefore, the said conviction is required to be set aside. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently submitted that the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court is proper for the reason that P.W.1 being an eyewitness to the incident, witnessed the said accident. He further stated that, the tipper vehicle was being driven in a zigzag manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased Suresh. He also identified the accused before the Court. However, the said identity has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3457 CRL.RP No. 200001 of 2018 not been disputed. Therefore, his evidence is believable and proper. 10. It is further submitted that, similarly, PWs.2 and 3 are also eyewitnesses to the incident. They stated that the tipper vehicle was being driven by the accused in a zigzag manner and dashed to the bike of Suresh, as a result of which, the said Suresh sustained injuries and later on, he died in the hospital. 11. It is further submitted that, PW5 - owner of the tipper vehicle, though, he turned hostile, admitted that the accused was the driver of the said vehicle. Hence, it is proved that the accused was driving the said vehicle as on the date of the accident. 12. It is further submitted that, having considered all these aspects, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court recorded the conviction. However, the Appellate Court while considering the evidence on record, opined that the rash and negligent driving had not been established by the prosecution and recorded the conviction only for the offence under Section 304A of IPC along with other offences under Section 134 r/w Section 187 of MV Act. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3457 CRL.RP No. 200001 of 2018 Hence, interference with the said findings is not necessary and the revision petition is liable to be rejected. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the revision petition. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in recording the conviction, it is appropriate to have a cursory look upon the evidence of eyewitnesses and also owner of the tipper vehicle, for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether or not any irregularity or illegality is committed by the Courts below in recording the conviction. 14. PWs.1 to 3 are eyewitnesses to the incident. They are independent witnesses. According to them, the accused was driving the tipper vehicle in a zigzag manner on the road and caused accident to the motorbike, on which the deceased was riding. Consequently, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and later, he succumbed to the said injuries in the hospital. The evidence of these witnesses and the cross-examination would indicate that, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3457 CRL.RP No. 200001 of 2018 the accused was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 15. P.W.4 being the scribe of the complaint, stated in his evidence that, as per the instructions of CW.1, he had scribed the complaint. However, a suggestion was made to him that, he was not aware about the actual incident, it was affirmed by him. 16. P.W.5 stated to be the owner of the tipper vehicle. He admitted that the accused was the driver of the said tipper. He was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the prosecutor. In the cross-examination, he stated that, he was not aware about the accident and also he did not know as to whether the accused was driving the said vehicle as on the date of the alleged accident. 17. Be that as it may, when the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is considered as true and proper, all the witnesses have stated their statements only after lodging the complaint on 21.12.2013. However, the accident occurred on 19.12.2013. The delay in lodging the complaint is not explained by the concerned eyewitnesses or the complainant. The Trial Court did not consider this aspect. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3457 CRL.RP No. 200001 of 2018 Even the Appellate Court also not dealt with the said delay. 18. In accident cases, the delay in lodging the complaint certainly would defeat the case of the prosecution for the reason that, there are several possibilities to implicate not only the vehicle, but also the driver to the case. Under such circumstances, the Courts are to be vigilant to consider the said delay as fatal to the case of the prosecution. 19. However, in this case, both the Courts have committed error in not considering the said delay. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are erroneous and the same are required to be set aside. 20. 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 21.07.2016 in C.C.No.2449/2014 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3457 CRL.RP No. 200001 of 2018 I Court, Vijaypur, and the judgment and order dated 14.11.2017 in Crl.A.No.41/2016 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, confirming the judgment of conviction of the Trial Court insofar as convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC Section 134 r/w Section 187 of MV Act, are set aside. (iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences under Section 304A of IPC and Section 134 r/w Section 187 of MV Act. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BSS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1