- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5571 CRL.RP No. 40 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 40 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI PRASAD REDDY S/O THIMMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.5/101, NAKKALA PALLI VILLAGE, HINDUPURA TALUK ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI KALYAN R, ADV.) AND: STATE BY HEBBAL TRAFFIC POLICE REF. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 30.10.2017 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.113/2013 PASSED BY THE LII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-53) BY ALLOWNG THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONSEQUENTLY TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 16.07.2012 IN C.C.NO.2976/2009 (C.C.NO.2188/2005) PASSED BY THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT III AT BANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5571 CRL.RP No. 40 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.07.2012 passed in CC No.2976/2009 (Old No- CC No.2188/2005) by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court - III, Benglauru, and the judgment and order dated 30.10.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.113/2013 by the Court of LII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner herein was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC and was tried for the said offences in CC.No.2976/2009 by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court - III, Benglauru. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 18.07.2005 at about 01.45 p.m., petitioner, who was the driver of the offending lorry bearing registration No.KA-40-A-455 drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5571 CRL.RP No. 40 of 2018 human life, in front of Hanuman Sawmill near Basavalingappa Samadhi on Bengaluru-Bellay Road and dashed his vehicle against the two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-04-Y-3582, in which deceased Aarathi was traveling along with PW5 (CW2) Smt. Chandramma. In the said road traffic accident, Aarathi had died at the spot and Chandramma, who had sustained injuries, was shifted to Hospital. It is under these circumstances, FIR was registered against the petitioner by Hebbal Traffic Police Station and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed for the aforesaid offences. 5. Petitioner had appeared before the Trial Court in response to the summons received by him in CC.No.2976/2009 (Old CC.No.2188/2005) and had claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its charges against the petitioner had examined eight charge sheet witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and got marked four documents as Exs.P1 to P4. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was placed on record. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, had convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and had - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5571 CRL.RP No. 40 of 2018 acquitted him of the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, petitioner was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days and for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner in CC No.2976/2009 was confirmed by the Court of LII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.113/2013 by judgment and order dated 30.10.2017. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the charge sheet witnesses, who were examined before the Trial Court have stated that petitioner was driving the offending lorry in a rash and negligent manner. He submits that the material charge sheet witnesses, who have been examined in the present case, were not cross-examined on behalf of the accused and no proper opportunity was given to the accused to cross-examine those witnesses. He submits that none of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5571 CRL.RP No. 40 of 2018 police officers who have registered the criminal case against the petitioner and conducted the investigation in the present case were examined before the Trial Court nor was the Doctor, who has conducted the postmortem of the deceased was examined. He submits that even the postmortem report of the deceased and the wound certificate of the injured witness has not been produced by the prosecution in the present case. Both the Courts without appreciating the aforesaid aspects of the matter, have mechanically convicted the petitioner for the charge sheeted offences. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, learned HCGP has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and has prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. The prosecution in order to prove the charges against the petitioner, in all, has examined eight witnesses in the present case. PW1 is the husband of deceased Arathi who has submitted the first information in the present case. Undisputedly, he is not an eye-witness to the accident question. He had gone to the spot after he had received information from his friend Shivakumar about the accident that had taken place. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5571 CRL.RP No. 40 of 2018 The complaint lodged by him before the police was marked through him as Ex.P1 and even the spot mahazar which was prepared by the police was got marked through this witness as Ex.P2. 9. PW-2 - Sudarshan is the alleged eye-witness in the present case. He has stated that on 18.07.2005, the offending lorry was driven by the petitioner in high speed and the same had dashed against the two wheeler in which two ladies were traveling. This witness has stated that accident had taken place due to the fault of lorry driver and he has identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending lorry. However, this witness has not stated that petitioner was driving the offending lorry in a rash and negligent manner, and therefore, the accident had taken place. 10. PW-3 - Ganeshappa is the panch witness to the spot mahazar - Ex.P2 which was got marked through PW1. This witness has identified his signature in the spot mahazar - Ex.P-2 as Ex.P2(a). - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5571 CRL.RP No. 40 of 2018 11. PW4 is the Motor Vehicles Inspector who had issued the IMV report - Ex.P4. This witness has deposed that on 20.07.2025, he had received requisition from Hebbal Traffic Police Station, and thereafter he had gone to the police station and inspected the two vehicles which were involved in the accident in question. During the course of cross-examination by the defence, he has admitted that he had not observed any damage on the rear side of the TVS scooty. According to the prosecution, the petitioner who was driving the offending lorry in high speed, had dashed the lorry to the rear side of the TVS scooty and had caused the accident. If that is so, in normal circumstances, the rear side of TVS scooty should have been damaged, but PW-4 has categorically stated that he had not observed any damage on the rear side of the TVS scooty which was involved in the accident in question. 12. PW-5 - Smt. Chandramma is the injured eye-witness in the present case. She has stated that on 18.07.2005 when she was traveling with the deceased in her two wheeler, the petitioner who was driving the offending lorry in high speed, had dashed the lorry against the two-wheeler and had caused - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5571 CRL.RP No. 40 of 2018 the accident. According to this witness, after the accident, Aarathi had fallen towards right side and she had fallen towards left side. The wheel of the offending lorry had passed over the head of Aarathi, and therefore, she had died at the spot. The prosecution has not produced the injury certificate of PW5, nor has it produced and marked the postmortem report of deceased Aarathi in the present case. 13. PW-6 - Shivakumar is another eye-witness to the accident in question. This witness also has stated that on 18.07.2005, the lorry which was driven by the petitioner in a high speed, had dashed against the rear portion of the scooty and had caused the accident. This witness also has stated that the wheel of the offending lorry had passed over deceased Aarathi, and therefore, she had died at the spot. 14. PW5 & PW6 who are the alleged eye-witnesses have also not stated that petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and as a result, the accident in question had taken place. It is relevant to note here that after the examination-in-chief of PW5 & PW6 was completed, since the advocate appearing for the accused was not present, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5571 CRL.RP No. 40 of 2018 Trial Court had asked the accused to cross-examine the aforesaid witness and since he had stated that there was no cross-examination from him, the Trial Court had taken the cross-examination of these two material charge-sheet witnesses as nil and proceeded further. 15. PW7 is another panch witness to Ex.P2 and according to this witness, the spot mahazar was held on 19.07.2005, whereas PW1 & PW2 have stated that spot mahazar was conducted on the date of accident i.e., 18.07.2005. Undisputedly, the prosecution has not examined the Police Officer who had drawn the spot mahazar - Ex.P2. 16. PW8 is the panch to Ex.P3 - Inquest mahazar. This witness has identified his signature as Ex.P3(a) and he has stated that inquest mahazar was conducted by the police on 19.07.2005. The Police Officer who has drawn the inquest mahazar has not been examined in the present case, and on the other hand, the Inquest mahazar has been produced and marked through PW8 who is a panch to the said document. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5571 CRL.RP No. 40 of 2018 17. Even PW7 & PW8 were also not cross-examined on behalf of the defence for the reason aforesaid. Therefore, it is apparent that the Trial Court had not given proper and sufficient opportunity to the accused to cross-examine PW5 to PW8. 18. The prosecution has failed to examine any of the police officers who have conducted the investigation in the present case and had filed the charge sheet and this lapse on the part of the prosecution is fatal to its case. The accused was, therefore, denied of an opportunity to put forward his defence and point out the inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution. Though it is alleged that the wheel of the offending lorry had passed over the deceased and as a result the deceased had died at the spot, no medical evidence is produced before the Court to substantiate such an allegation. The injury found on the dead body of the deceased was not proved by the prosecution either by producing the documentary evidence or by examining the doctor who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased. Evidence of the panch witnesses who have been examined as PW3 & PW8 would go to show that there is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5571 CRL.RP No. 40 of 2018 inconsistency in the date of drawing of the spot mahazar. As stated earlier, the police officer who has drawn the mahazar has not been examined in the present case. 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA VS SATISH - (1998)8 SCC 493, has observed in paragraph 4 as under: "4. Merely because the truck was being driving at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved." 20. Even in the case on hand, the eye-witnesses have only stated that the offending lorry was driven in high speed and none of them have stated that the offending lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the petitioner. According to the prosecution, the offending lorry which was driven in a high - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5571 CRL.RP No. 40 of 2018 speed had dashed against the rear portion of the two wheeler in which the deceased was riding along with PW5 and had caused the accident. PW4 - Motor Vehicle Inspector has stated that the scooty did not have any damages on its rear portion. 21. The Courts below have failed to appreciate the inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution and also have failed to appreciate that material charge sheet witnesses were not examined in the present case. Proper opportunity was also not given to the accused to cross-examine PW5 to PW8, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The courts below were, therefore, not justified in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offences since the prosecution had failed to prove the charge-sheet allegations beyond reasonable doubt against him. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order: 22. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.07.2012 passed in CC.No.2976/2009 (Old CC.No.2188/2005) by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court - III, Benglauru, and the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5571 CRL.RP No. 40 of 2018 judgment and order dated 30.10.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.113/2013 by the Court of LII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge-sheeted offences. Bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. Fine amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN/KK