- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5059 CRL.RP No. 618 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 618 OF 2017 BETWEEN: MAGESHA S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT ULLAMBALLI VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MOHANKUMAR D, ADV.,) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRIRANGAPATNA POLICE REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 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 JUDGMENT DATED 22.03.2017 IN CRL.A.NO.5027/2015 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) WHEREIN CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.2015 IN C.C.NO.61/2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIIVL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SRIRANGAPATNA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279,338,304A OF IPC. 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:5059 CRL.RP No. 618 of 2017 ORAL ORDER 1. Accused is before this Court in this 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 19.10.2015 passed by the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Srirangapatna, in CC.No.61/2013, and the judgment and order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at Srirangapatna), in Crl.A.No.5027/2015. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner herein was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A of IPC in Crime No.62/2013 registered by Srirangapatna Police Station, Mandya District, and was tried for the charge-sheeted offences in CC.No.61/2013 before the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Srirangapatna. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.02.2013 at about 10.30 a.m., petitioner who was the driver of Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration KA-28-MB-8888, had driven the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5059 CRL.RP No. 618 of 2017 said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and had lost control of the said vehicle and dashed against the road divider and thereafter had dashed against the hind portion of the bus bearing registration No.KA-42-F-205. In the said accident, four passengers who were the inmates of Tata Sumo vehicle had died. In addition to the same, the other inmates of Tata Sumo vehicle had suffered injuries. It is under these circumstances, based on the complaint of the driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-42-F-205 viz., Veeranna (PW-1), FIR in Crime No.62/2013 for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner by Srirangapatna Police Station, Mandya District, and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against him for the aforesaid offences. 5. The petitioner who had received summons from the Trial Court in CC.No.61/2013 had appeared before the Court and claimed to be tried for the charge-sheeted offences. The prosecution in order to prove its charges against the petitioner had in all examined 15 charge-sheet witnesses as PW-1 to PW- 15 and had got marked 28 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-28. Thereafter, the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5059 CRL.RP No. 618 of 2017 Trial Court under Section 313 of Cr.PC. However, on behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was placed on record. 6. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments on both sides, vide the judgment and order dated 19.10.2015 convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the charge-sheeted offence in CC.No.61/2013 and the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in Crl.A.No.5027/2015 by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at Srirangapatna) by judgment and order dated 22.03.2017. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. None of the prosecution witnesses have stated that petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He submits that the accident in question had taken place after the rear wheel of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo bearing No.KA-28-MB-8888 had punctured. Petitioner herein who was the driver of the Tata Sumo vehicle had lost control, and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5059 CRL.RP No. 618 of 2017 therefore, had dashed his vehicle against the road divider, and thereafter, the vehicle had toppled upside down and hit the rear side of the bus which was moving on the same direction. He submits that the courts below have failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects of the matter and have erred in convicting the petitioner for the charge-sheeted offences. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 8. Per contra, learned HCGP has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below. He submits that four people have died in the accident in question. PW-3 to PW-7 are the injured eye-witnesses in the present case who were the inmates of the Tata Sumo vehicle. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-7 clearly shows that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a high speed and as a result, the accident in question had taken place. He submits that there is nothing on record to show that the rear wheel of the Tata Sumo car had burst or was punctured and as a result, the accident had taken place. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5059 CRL.RP No. 618 of 2017 9. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA-28-MB-8888. On 10.02.2013, the deceased and the injured in the present case who hail from West Bengal had engaged the services of the petitioner and were traveling in his Tata Sumo vehicle from Bengaluru to Mysuru. When the vehicle reached near T.M.Hosuru Gate on Bengaluru-Mysuru Highway, the same dashed against the road divider and got toppled and fell on the road and dashed against the hind portion of the bus bearing KA-42-F-205 which was also proceeding from Bengaluru to Mysuru. In the said accident, four persons who were the inmates of the car had died and PW- 3 to PW-7 were also the inmates of the Tata Sumo vehicle had suffered injuries. 10. PW-1 is the first informant in the present case. He was the driver of the bus bearing registration KA-42-F-205 and PW-2 is the conductor of the said bus. PW-1 has stated that the Tata Sumo vehicle which was driven in high speed, initially dashed against the road divider and thereafter dashed against the hind portion of the bus. Ex.P-1 is the copy of the complaint - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5059 CRL.RP No. 618 of 2017 submitted by PW-1 and Ex.P(1a) is his signature. This witness has not stated that the Tata Sumo vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the petitioner. It was suggested to this witness during the course of his cross-examination that the accident in question had taken place after the tyre of the Tata Sumo vehicle got burst. However, PW-1 has denied the said suggestion. 11. PW-2 has stated that when the accident in question had taken place, he was distributing tickets inside the bus, and therefore, he had not actually seen the accident, and therefore, this witness was partially treated as hostile and cross-examined by the prosecutor. 12. PW-3 to PW-7 are the injured eye-witnesses in the present case who were the inmates of the Tata Sumo vehicle which was driven by the petitioner. None of these witnesses have stated that the petitioner was driving the offending car in a rash and negligent manner and as a result, the accident in question had taken place, and on the other hand, even these witnesses have only stated that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in high speed. A suggestion was made by the defence - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5059 CRL.RP No. 618 of 2017 even to these witnesses that the accident in question had taken place after the tyre of the Tata Sumo vehicle got burst. However, these witnesses also have denied the said suggestion made to them. 13. PW-8 is a panch witness to the spot mahazar Ex.P-2. This witness has stated that he is not aware about the contents of the mahazar and as requested by the police, he has signed the said document. PW-9 is the panch witness to the inquest mahazars Exs.P-9 & P-10. 14. PW-11 is the Head Constable of Srirangapatna Police Station who had prepared the inquest mahazar as per Ex.P-13. PW-12 is the Inspector of Motor Vehicles who had prepared the IMV report - Ex.P-14. PW-13 is the person who was present along with the Investigation Officer and assisted him to translate the statements of the injured victims from Urdu language to Kannada language and record the same. PW-14 is the Police Inspector who had partially conducted the investigation in the present case after registering the FIR. PW-15 is the Investigation Officer who has completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet in the present case. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5059 CRL.RP No. 618 of 2017 15. PW-14 has spoken about the rough sketch of the spot of accident and this witness has also stated that the offending vehicle had initially dashed against the cement road divider and thereafter had dashed against the hind portion of the KSRTC bus. Exs.P-3 to P-9 are the photographs of the spot of crime which was got marked through PW-14. 16. The material on record would go to show that the said photographs were taken on the date of accident, and thereafter, the vehicles were shifted to the police station and PW-12 - Inspector of Motor Vehicles had inspected the vehicles involved in the accident on 11.02.2013 inside the police station premises. The defence has also suggested to PW-15 - Investigation Officer who had conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet, that the accident in question had taken place after the tyre of Tata Sumo vehicle got burst. Even this witness has denied the said suggestion. However, a perusal of the photographs of the accident spot would go to show that the left hand hind rear wheel of the Tata Sumo vehicle is found punctured. The prosecution has not explained the same. Even in the IMV report - Ex.P-14, there is no mention of the damage - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5059 CRL.RP No. 618 of 2017 caused to the rear wheel of the Tata Sumo vehicle. Even during the deposition of Motor Vehicle Inspector - PW-12, he has not stated anything about the damage that was caused to the left hand side rear wheel of the Tata Sumo vehicle. Therefore, the defence of the accused that the accident in question had taken place after the rear tyre of the Tata Sumo vehicle got burst and the driver of the vehicle had lost control of the vehicle cannot be completely ruled out. Even in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, petitioner has pleaded this defence. 17. In addition to the same, none of the charge-sheet witnesses who have been examined in the present case including the injured witnesses have 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. All these witnesses have only stated that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in high speed. Undisputedly, the vehicle was moving in National Highway i.e., Bengaluru-Mysuru highway and merely for the reason that the vehicle was driven in high speed in a National Highway, it cannot be said that the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5059 CRL.RP No. 618 of 2017 driver was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 18. 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." 19. The coordinate bench of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.1004/2021 disposed of on 29.04.2025 in the case of Harish vs State of Karnataka, having placed reliance on the judgment in Satish's case (supra), in paragraph 19, has observed as under: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5059 CRL.RP No. 618 of 2017 "19. On applying hitherto position of law to the facts and circumstances of this case, it could be established that the prosecution failed to prove the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner/accused by placing cogent evidence. Further, I find it utterly compelling to re-clarify the pith and substance of Section 279 of IPC which categorically stipulates that to attract the said provision there has to be an element of ‘rash driving’. Albeit PW.1 stated that the accused was driving the vehicle on high speed, however, he grossly failed to explain what amounts to high speed and what was the speed at which the accused/petitioner was driving that made him imply petitioner/accused had transgressed the pursuant speed limit. In such circumstances, per-se an inference cannot be drawn that the petitioner was driving at high speed by merely relying on untrustworthy testimony of PW.1." 20. The courts below have failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects of the matter and in my considered view have erred in convicting the petitioner for the charge-sheeted offences. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order: 21. Criminal revision petition is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.10.2015 passed by - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5059 CRL.RP No. 618 of 2017 the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Srirangapatna, in CC.No.61/2013, and the judgment and order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at Srirangapatna), in Crl.A.No.5027/2015, are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge-sheeted offences. Bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. Fine amount, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the petitioner. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK