- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2909 CRL.RP No. 200021 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200021 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN MUSTAFA S/O ABBAS ALI MAKANDAR AGE: 34 YEARS OCC: LORRY DRIVER, R/O TELEKUNI VILLAGE TQ:ALAND DIST: KALABURAGI ...PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHANTESH H DESAI, ADV.) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ALAND P.S. TQ: ALAND DIST: KALABURAGI …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/SEC.397 AND 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO DIRECT THAT THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE KALABURAGI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.54/2016 AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 12.07.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT ALAND IN C.C.NO.249/2010 BE SET ASIDE AND THE PETITIONER BE ACQUITED OF THE OFFENCES FOR WHICH HE STAND CHARGED. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07.03.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH AND COMING 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 Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2909 CRL.RP No. 200021 of 2019 CAV ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2016 in C.C.No.249/2010 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Aland (for short ‘Trial Court’) and its confirmation judgment and order dated 30.11.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.54/2016 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi (for short ‘Appellate Court’), wherein the petitioner/accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short “MV Act”). 2. The ranks of the parties will be considered henceforth as that of Trial Court for convenience. Factual matrix of the case: 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 15.12.2009 at about 7.30 a.m., the cousin brother of the complainant - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2909 CRL.RP No. 200021 of 2019 had been to Gulbarga on his work on a motorcycle bearing its No.KA-32/S-4689. Later on, the complainant received a message stating that one truck bearing registration No.KA-32/252 dashed to the motorcycle of the cousin brother of the complainant near the Banana garden of one Iftikhar Baje. Due to the said impact, the rider of the motorcycle sustained head injuries and other injuries all over the body and succumbed to those injuries on the spot. 4. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the informant was further informed that the driver of the offending lorry stayed for a while after the accident and thereafter, ran away from the spot. Later, he came to know the name of the driver of the lorry as Rajasab. Therefore, he lodged a complaint against the said driver. 5. The respondent - Police have registered a case in Crime No.253/2009 for the offences stated supra. After conducting the investigation, submitted charge sheet. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2909 CRL.RP No. 200021 of 2019 6. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and got marked six documents as Exs.P1 to 6. The Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences stated supra. In the appeal, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. 7. Heard Sri Mahantesh H. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State. 8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged, however, the Courts below have failed to take note of the evidence of all the witnesses properly. Consequently, the impugned judgment is passed which is liable to be set aside. 9. It is further submitted that, in the cross-examination of P.W.3, it is stated that the accident had occurred 1 km., away from the upward road. If that is accepted as true, vehicles cannot move at high speed on such - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2909 CRL.RP No. 200021 of 2019 road. It is further stated that, in the evidence of P.W.4, it appears that on 15.12.2009 at about 12.00 noon, the accident occurred. However, the police have called P.W.4 to the police station on the following day to record his statement. 10. It is further submitted that, none of the witnesses have spoken about the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner. In the absence of evidence relating to rash and negligent driving, conviction for the above said offences ought not to have been passed. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently submitted that, it is an admitted fact that the accident had occurred and the accident was taken place between motorcycle and lorry. The lorry was being driven by the petitioner. There are eyewitnesses to the incident to substantiate that the lorry was being driven at high speed. Such being the case, recording the conviction on the basis of evidence is proper and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2909 CRL.RP No. 200021 of 2019 relevant. Therefore, it is not appropriate to interfere with the findings of both the Courts. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, it appears that P.W.1 being the complainant had lodged a complaint stating that he had received a message stating that his cousin had met with an accident and sustained injuries. He being the complainant supported the case of the prosecution. However, his evidence in respect of rash and negligent driving and also identity of the driver is not relevant. 13. P.W.2 is a Businessman. He has stated in his evidence that, after receiving the information about the accident, he went to the spot. He happened to be the witness to Exs.P2 and P3. 14. P.W.3 is considered as an eyewitness to the incident. He stated to have seen the accident and also identified - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2909 CRL.RP No. 200021 of 2019 the driver of the lorry. According to him, the accident occurred due to the fault committed by the accused. Even though he was subjected to cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit his credibility. 15. P.W.4 is also one of the eyewitnesses who supported the case of the prosecution. He was the pillion rider of the bike of which P.W.3 was riding. 16. P.W.5 was working as PSI of the respondent - police. He stated to have registered a case and conducted the spot mahazar. 17. P.W.6 is the owner of the lorry. According to him, Raju Kothwal was driver of the lorry. He was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the prosecutor. However, nothing has been elicited to discredit his evidence. 18. On reading of the entire evidence of all the witnesses, it appears from the record that the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 are relevant as they are eyewitnesses to the incident. According to them, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused. However, P.W.6 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2909 CRL.RP No. 200021 of 2019 being the owner of the lorry has stated in his evidence that the accused was not appointed as driver of his lorry. When the evidence of these witnesses are contradictory to each other, it creates a doubt as to whether the petitioner was really driving the said vehicle as on the date cof alleged incident. 19. Such being the fact, the Courts below ought to have extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. As the said benefit has not been extended, it is appropriate to extend the said benefit by exercising the revisional jurisdiction in order to secure the ends of justice. 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 12.07.2016 in C.C.No.249/2010 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Aland and the judgment and order dated 30.11.2018 in Crl.A.No.54/2016 passed by the I - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2909 CRL.RP No. 200021 of 2019 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi are set aside. (iii) The accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 187 of MV Act. (iv) Bail bonds executed by the accused, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss