- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5352 CRL.RP No. 1535 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1535 OF 2016 BETWEEN: VIRUPAKSHA S/O BALAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RA/T THINDLU VILALGE HOSAKOTE TLAUK BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 114 PERMANENT ADDRESS MANJALAPURU VULLAGE SURAPURA TLAUK YADAGIR DISTRICT - 585 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI R. RAKSHITH, AMICUS CURAIE V/O DTD:04.04.2025) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB-INSPECTOR MALURU POLICE STATION KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130. …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 AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 12.01.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALURU IN C.C.NO.385/2014 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.10.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., KOLAR IN CRL.A.NO.5/2016 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR 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:5352 CRL.RP No. 1535 of 2016 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 12.01.2016 passed by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Malur, in CC.No.385/2014, and the judgment and order dated 14.10.2016 passed by the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Crl.A.No.5/2016. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner herein was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A IPC and Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, and was tried for the charge- sheeted offences before the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Malur, in CC.No.385/2014. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.12.2013 at about 3.30 p.m., petitioner who was the driver of the offending tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-51-A-6849, drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner in the State Highway from Kolar to Malur and near SFS School dashed the offending - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5352 CRL.RP No. 1535 of 2016 lorry against the two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-70-L- 0857 in which deceased Madhusudhana Reddy was traveling along with pillion rider Narayanaswamy and caused the accident. Madhusudhana Reddy who had sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question died subsequently. It is under these circumstances, FIR was registered against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against him for the alleged offences. 5. In response to the summons received by the petitioner in CC.No.385/2014, he had appeared before the Trial Court and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its charges against the petitioner, had examined totally seven charge-sheet witnesses as PW-1 to PW-7 and got marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. 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, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A of IPC and Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. The said judgment and order of conviction - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5352 CRL.RP No. 1535 of 2016 and sentence passed by the Trial Court in CC.No.385/2014 was confirmed in Crl.A.No.5/2016 by the Court of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Kolar, vide judgment and order dated 14.10.2016. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court. 6. 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. He submits that the material witness viz., Narayanaswamy has not been examined by the prosecution in the present case. He submits that the material on record would go to show that the petitioner was driving the lorry in a normal speed when the accident in question had taken place. He refers to the spot mahazar - Ex.P2 and rough sketch - Ex.P11 and submits that the petitioner had applied his brake and had tried to avoid the accident. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was driving in a rash and negligent manner. 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5352 CRL.RP No. 1535 of 2016 submits that PW-2 & PW-3 who are the eye-witnesses to the accident in question, have supported the case of the prosecution. The courts below having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence have rightly convicted the petitioner for the alleged offences. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 8. The prosecution in order to prove its allegations against the petitioner, has in all examined seven charge-sheet witnesses. PW-1 is the first informant in the present case. Undisputedly, he was not present at the spot of accident and only after PW-2 who is the alleged eye-witness in the present case informed him over phone about the accident, he came to the spot of accident and thereafter shifted the injured to the hospital. Ex.P1 is the complaint lodged by PW-1. 9. PW-2 & PW-3 are the alleged eye-witnesses in the present case. During the course of their examination-in-chief, they have stated that the offending vehicle was driven by the petitioner in high speed had dashed against the motor cycle of deceased Madhusudhana Reddy. However, this witness have not stated that the petitioner was driving his lorry in a rash and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5352 CRL.RP No. 1535 of 2016 negligent manner. During the course of further cross- examination of these witnesses, they have clearly stated that the lorry was driven in a normal speed by the petitioner at the time of accident. Except PW-2 & PW-3, there are no other eye- witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution. 10. CW-2 - Madhusudhana Redy who was riding pillion along with the deceased, had suffered injuries in the accident in question and he has not been examined as a witness in the present case by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. 11. PW-4 is the panch witness to the spot mahazar - Ex.P2. This witness has not supported the case of the prosecution, and therefore, the prosecution had failed to prove the spot of accident in accordance with law. 12. PW-5 - Kempegowda is the owner of the offencing lorry who has stated before the court that the petitioner was the driver of the offending lorry on the alleged date of incident. PW-6 is the Circle Inspector of Police who has conducted the investigation in the present case and had filed the charge - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5352 CRL.RP No. 1535 of 2016 sheet. He has also spoken about the arrest of the accused. During the course of his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had not visited the spot of accident at any point of time. PW-7 is the PSI who had registered the FIR after receiving the complaint from PW-1 and also had visited the spot and prepared the spot panchanama - Ex.P2. 13. 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." 14. In the present case, PW-2 & PW-3 who are the alleged eye-witnesses have stated that petitioner was driving the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5352 CRL.RP No. 1535 of 2016 offending vehicle in high speed, and had dashed his vehicle against the motor cycle of the deceased. During the course of their cross-examination, these two witnesses have stated that petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a normal speed before the accident took place. PW-2 & PW-3 have not stated that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. As stated earlier, Madhusudhana Reddy who would have been the best witness to speak about the accident in question, has not been examined in the present case. Even the spot of accident has not been proved by the prosecution and the Investigation Officer - PW-6 who has conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet, has stated that he had not visited the spot of accident at any point of time. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who has prepared the IMV report at Ex.P-6 is also not examined in the present case. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the courts below were not justified in convicting the petitioner for the charge-sheeted offences, and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5352 CRL.RP No. 1535 of 2016 15. Criminal revision petition is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.01.2016 passed by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Malur, in CC.No.385/2014, and the judgment and order dated 14.10.2016 passed by the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Crl.A.No.5/2016, 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. 16. The fees of Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK