- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10931 CRL.RP No. 5 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 5 OF 2018 BETWEEN: M. MOHAN S/O M. VENKATESHALU AGE: 45 YEARS OCC:DRIVER R/O BEHIND TALKIES HARAPANAHALLI DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN:583 131. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADV.) AND: STATE BY SHO HALAVAGALU POLICE STATION DAVANAGERE DISTRICT REPTD BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ANOOP KUMAR M.V, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HARAPANAHALLI IN C.C.NO.189/2016 (C.C.NO.54/2014) DATED 14.10.2016 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN CRL.A.NO.113/2016 DATED 02.12.2017. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10931 CRL.RP No. 5 of 2018 ORAL ORDER 1. Accused is before this Court in this criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.10.2016 passed in CC.No.189/2016 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Harapanahalli, and the judgment and order dated 02.12.2017 passed by the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Davanagere, in Crl.A.No.113/2016. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 31.08.2013 at about 10.35 a.m., petitioner who was driving Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA-34/A-6831, drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and had dashed the said vehicle against Smt. Ningamma w/o late Somanagouda at SH-25 road, near Duggavathi village, and in the said accident, Ningamma who had sustained injuries had succumbed to the same subsequently in the hospital while undergoing treatment. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10931 CRL.RP No. 5 of 2018 4. The police after investigation had filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A IPC. The prosecution in order to prove its charges against the petitioner had examined nine charge-sheet witnesses as PW-1 to PW-9 and got marked 11 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-11. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was placed on record. 5. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304A IPC by judgment and order dated 14.10.2016 passed in CC.No.189/2016. For the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, petitioner was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 45 days. For the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC, petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.2,000/-. 6. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court was confirmed by the Appellate Court - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10931 CRL.RP No. 5 of 2018 in Crl.A.No.113/2016 vide judgment and order dated 02.12.2017. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that except PW-4 – Durgamma who is the daughter of the deceased, the other material charge-sheet witnesses have all completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Even PW-4 had not supported the case of the prosecution during the course of examination-in-chief, and therefore, she was treated as a hostile witness and cross-examined by the prosecution. The statement of PW-4 during the course of her cross-examination could not have been solely relied upon to convict the petitioner for the alleged offences. The postmortem report of the deceased would go to show that the death was as a result of pulmonary embolishm secondary to venous thrombosis. The material on record would go to show that it was the petitioner who had shifted the injured immediately after the accident. There is no material to show that petitioner was driving the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10931 CRL.RP No. 5 of 2018 offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 8. Per contra, learned HCGP has argued in support of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, and submits that since both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings, the scope for interference by this court is very limited, and accordingly he prays to dismiss the petition. 9. The prosecution in order to prove its charges against the petitioner, has examined nine charge-sheet witnesses as PW-1 to PW-9. It is not in dispute that on the alleged date of incident, petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA-34/A-6831. According to the prosecution, on 31.08.2013 at about 10.35 a.m., petitioner drove the offending vehicle towards reverse side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle against Smt. Ningamma who was standing on the road side and had caused the accident. 10. PW-1 – Bheemappa is the panch witness to Ex.P-1 – spot mahazar. This witness has not supported the case of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10931 CRL.RP No. 5 of 2018 prosecution, and therefore, he was treated as a hostile witness and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. But nothing material was elicited from him by the Prosecutor even during the course of his cross-examination. 11. PW-2 is the panch witness to Ex.P-2 – seizure mahazar and even this witness has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and nothing material has been elicited even from his mouth during the course of his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor. 12. PW-3 is the alleged eye-witness to the accident in question. This witness also has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Even during his cross-examination, the Public Prosecutor has not elicited any material which is incriminating against the petitioner. 13. PW-4 who is the daughter of deceased Ningamma allegedly was along with her at the time of accident. PW-4 has not stated during the course of her examination-in-chief that on the alleged date of incident, petitioner drove the offending vehicle towards reverse side in a rash and negligent manner - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10931 CRL.RP No. 5 of 2018 endangering human life and thereby had caused the accident. She has only stated that when her mother was standing on the road side, the offending vehicle which was facing towards Harihara all of a sudden came towards reverse side and dashed against her mother and in the said accident, her mother had suffered injuries and immediately she was shifted to the hospital. This witness has failed to identify the petitioner as the driver of the vehicle, and according to this witness she had taken her injured mother to the hospital for the purpose of treatment. 14. However, PW-7 – Dr. A.Sridevi who had treated the injured in the hospital has stated during the course of her examination-in-chief that petitioner who was the driver of Tata Ace vehicle had admitted the injured to the hospital. 15. PW-5 – Dr. Lohitha is the doctor who had performed the postmortem of the deceased. Ex.P-5 is the postmortem report and the same would go to show that the death was as a result of pulmonary embolishm secondary to venous thrombosis. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10931 CRL.RP No. 5 of 2018 16. PW-6 is the owner of the offending vehicle and this witness has stated that petitioner was the driver of the vehicle on the alleged date of incident. PW-7 is the doctor who had treated the injured Smt. Ningamma after she was admitted to Government Hospital by the petitioner. She has stated that injured had suffered two injuries which were grievous in nature. PW-8 is the Head Constable who has drawn Ex.P-1 – spot mahazar and and PW-9 is the Circle Inspector of Police who has conducted investigation in the present case and has filed charge sheet against the petitioner. 17. Except PW-3 & PW-4, none of the charge-sheet witnesses are the eye-witnesses to the accident in question. PW-3 has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Even PW-4 had not supported the case of the prosecution during the course of her examination-in-chief, and therefore, she was treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. The panch witnesses to Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 also have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, and therefore, the spot of accident was not proved in the present case in accordance with law. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10931 CRL.RP No. 5 of 2018 18. The Trial Court solely placing reliance on the deposition of PW-4 who was treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the prosecution, has convicted the petitioner for the charge- sheeted offences. The material on record are not sufficient to hold that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and had dashed the offending vehicle against deceased Ningamma. The prosecution had, therefore, failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner. 19. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects of the matter. Under the circumstances, in my considered view, the courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner for the charge-sheeted offences. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the following order: 20. Criminal revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.10.2016 passed in CC.No.189/2016 by the Court of Senior - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10931 CRL.RP No. 5 of 2018 Civil Judge & JMFC, Harapanahalli, and the judgment and order dated 02.12.2017 passed by the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Davanagere, in Crl.A.No.113/2016, are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304A IPC. His bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. Fine amount deposited by him shall be refunded. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK