- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1987 CRL.RP No. 200036 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200036 OF 2020 BETWEEN: ABDUL LATEEF S/O SULTAN SAB AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER R/O. VILLAGE CHAMBO TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585 401 …PETITIONER (BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADV.) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH TRAFFIC POLICE STATION BIDAR TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR, REP. BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING KALABURAGI-585 107 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 22.06.2020, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BIDAR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.69/2019, THEREBY ALLOWED IN PART AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BUT MODIFYING SENTENCE PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC- II AT BIDAR IN C.C.NO.2397/2015 DATED 23.08.2019. ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF ALL CHARGES IN BOTH C.C.NO.2397/2015, ON THE FILE OF BY THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-II AT BIDAR AS WELL AS IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.69/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BIDAR, AND PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS HON'BLE COURT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1987 CRL.RP No. 200036 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below wherein the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act (for short ‘IMV Act’). 2. The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as per their rankings before the Trial Court, for convenience. Factual matrix of the case: 3. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1, being a complainant, lodged a complaint stating that the accused being a driver of the Tractor bearing registration No.AP- 25-M-3708 came from Bus-stand to Madiwala Circle by driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to motorcycle bearing No.KA-38-K-9585. It is also alleged that immediately after the accident, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1987 CRL.RP No. 200036 of 2020 petitioner fled away from the spot. Due to the said accident, P.W.1 sustained injuries and her husband Thippanna sustained grievous injuries and died in the hospital. Based on the said information, the respondent - police have registered a case in Crime No.172/2015 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC and Section 187 of MV Act, 1988. The respondent - police after conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 4. The Trial Court opined that P.W.1 has supported the case of the prosecution, not only, in respect of the accident, but also in respect of rash and negligent driving. In addition to that, P.W.6, who is the eyewitness to the incident, has supported the case of the prosecution and also witnessed the said accident. P.W.5, who is stated to be the owner of the offending vehicle, has stated about the accident. PWs.7 and 8 who are the official witnesses, have stated about the investigation and also IMV report. 5. Having considered the evidence of PWs.1, 6, 7 and 8, the Trial Court recorded the conviction. The Appellate Court having concurred the findings of the Trial Court, however, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1987 CRL.RP No. 200036 of 2020 differed from the sentence of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court modified the sentence and sent the file to the Trial Court for the necessary requirements. 6. Heard Sri.Ganesh Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jamadar Shahabuddin, High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the concurrent findings of the Courts below are perverse, illegal and untenable both under the facts and law. 8. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 did not disclose the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle of which the petitioner was allegedly driving as on that date. In the absence of evidence, regarding rash and negligent driving, it is not appropriate to record the conviction in respect of the above said offences. Also, in the absence of evidence regarding the presence of the accused, recording the conviction for the offence under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 cannot be held to be proper. 9. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 are not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1987 CRL.RP No. 200036 of 2020 accused has committed the offences as stated supra. Such being the fact, the Courts below recorded the conviction against the accused is not proper. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 10. Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent vehemently submitted that the concurrent findings of the Courts below are proper and appropriate for the reason that P.W.1 and P.W.6 are the eye-witnesses to the incident. They are consistent in their evidence in respect of rash and negligent driving. Therefore, it is not appropriate to interfere with the said findings. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, it is appropriate to have a cursory look upon the evidence of material witnesses. 12. P.W.1 being an eyewitness to the incident, stated in her evidence that she is the wife of the deceased Thippanna. According to her, on 28.06.2015 about 10.15 a.m., - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1987 CRL.RP No. 200036 of 2020 herself and her husband Thippanna were proceeding on the motorcycle, a tractor is stated to have dashed the Scooter to the backside of the bike. Consequently, she sustained injuries and her husband sustained grievous injuries. Later, the said Thippanna succumbed to the injuries. Further, she stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. 13. P.W.6 stated to be the eyewitness, has stated that, on 28.07.2015, when himself and C.W.8 were proceeding from Shivanagar to District Hospital, Vijayapura on the motorcycle, he is stated to have witnessed the incident as an eyewitness. He further stated that the said accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. 14. P.W.5 who is the owner of the tractor did not support the case of the prosecution regarding the identity of the accused. 15. Having considered the evidence of these material witnesses, it can be held that there are contradictions in respect of the incident and also the accident. As per the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1987 CRL.RP No. 200036 of 2020 evidence of P.W.1, the accident had occurred on 28.06.2015. However, P.W.6 stated in his evidence that the accident had occurred on 28.07.2015. This inconsistency would amount to material contradictions. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.6 as eyewitness to the incident appears to be not appropriate. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.1 did not disclose the rash and negligent act of the accused and she also did not identify the accused. Such being the fact, recording the conviction for the offences as stated supra by the Courts below, in my considered view, is not proper. Therefore, the said conviction is required to be set aside. 16. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The revision petition is allowed. ii. The judgment of conviction dated 23.08.2019 and order on sentence dated 29.08.2019 passed in C.C.No.2397/2015 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Bidar and the judgment and order dated 22.06.2020 passed in Crl.A.No.69/2019 by - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1987 CRL.RP No. 200036 of 2020 the Principal District and Sessions Judge Bidar, are set aside. iii. The petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and Section 187 of IMV Act. iv. The bail bonds executed, if any, stands cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE TMP/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 CT:PK