- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22113 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.336 OF 2018 BETWEEN: MANJUNATH SON OF MARULASIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT GALADALHALLI CROSS TARIKERE CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577177. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RACHITHA RAJSHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY THIRTHAHALLI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2018 DISMISSING THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN CRL.A.NO.42/2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 25.04.2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., THIRTHAHALLI IN C.C.NO.328/2016, CONVICTING THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279, 378 AND 304-A OF IPC, 1860 R/W SECTION 134(A)(B) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988. Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22113 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader. Further arguments on behalf of the revision petitioner was heard on 01.04.2026 and 15.04.2026. Documents filed on behalf of the petitioner were taken on record. 2. The petitioner in the above case is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C No.328/2016, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under: “In exercise of powers vested under Section 255(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sec.279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. And u/Sec.134(A) & (B) of IMV Act. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and shall pay fine amount of Rs.5,000/- for the offence p/u/sec. 304(A) of I.P.C. and in default to pay fine amount, accused shall undergo to simple imprisonment for further period of one month. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22113 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2018 The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one months and shall pay fine amount of Rs.500/- for the offence p/u/sec. 304(A) &(B) of I.M.V.Act and in default to pay fine amount, accused shall undergo to simple imprisonment for further period of 15 days. The bail bond and surety bond of the accused stand cancelled.” 3. The order of conviction and sentence was challenged by the accused before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.42/2017. 4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court secured the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re- appreciation of the material on record dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.24 to 27 as under: “24. The appellant counsel has vehemently argued that P.W.2 has not identified the driver. Therefore, the prosecution did not prove the identity of the accused. The alleged accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased Manjunatha had succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The only contention of the appellant counsel was that the prosecution has failed to prove that at the time of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22113 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2018 alleged accident, the offending lorry was driven by the accused. 25. I have carefully perused the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to prove the charges leveled against appellant. As per the case of prosecution, P.W.4 Umesh was also one of the eyewitness to the alleged accident. In the chief examination of P.W.4, he has categorically stated that he has witnessed the alleged accident and he has given the registration number of the offending lorry to the police and categorically stated that at the time of accident the accused was driving the offending lorry. In the cross-examination by the defence counsel, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve his evidence. Otherwise, there is nothing elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.4 that why he deposed falsely against the accused. 26. Apart from that, it is also pertinent to note that, the evidence of the owner of the offending lorry P.W.6 Harsha is also very crucial for the prosecution case. P.W.6 in an unambiguous term has stated that, the offending lorry is belongs to him and on the date of alleged accident, the accused was the driver of that lorry. Surprisingly, the defence counsel has not chosen to cross-examine P.W.6. Therefore, testimony of P.W.6 remains uncontroverted. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22113 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2018 27. The documents exhibited by the prosecution, specifically, the spot mahazar which is marked as per Ex.P.4 and spot sketch which is marked as per Ex.P.9 clearly shows that, the offending lorry was on the extreme right corner of the road headed towards Thirthahalli. At the place of accident, the width of the road was 20 feet. Therefore, on perusal of Ex.P.4 and P.9, one could say that, the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. There is no reason to take divergent view than what has been taken by the learned Magistrate. On perusal of the materials placed by the prosecution and the evidence of the eyewitnesses as well as injured, it is clearly established that the accident was occurred due to the sole and whole negligent of the appellant. Therefore, the learned Magistrate on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution in a proper perceptiveness has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case. Therefore, I do not find any reason or grounds to interfere in the well-reasoned order. Therefore, the appeal being bereft of merits liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer points for consideration in the negative.” 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition on the following grounds. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22113 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2018  “The impugned judgment and conviction passed by the Courts below is not sustainable either in law or in facts.  The learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in the correct legal perspective.  The learned Trial Court misread the evidence on record and not applied the correct principles of law in appreciating the evidence.  The prosecution has not proved the case against the accused/petitioner herein beyond reasonable doubt.  The impugned judgments of the courts below have resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.  The petitioner may be permitted to urge other legal grounds at the time of hearing.” 6. Sri P.P.Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently contented that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences. 7. He would point out that there is a serious discrepancy with regard to who is the driver of the offending vehicle and in that regard there is no proper material evidence based on record by the prosecution and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22113 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2018 8. He points out that PW-3, B.T.Suresh has turned hostile and PWs-4, 5 and 8 are the witnesses to the spot panchanama who have also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the very genesis of the offence itself is not properly established by the prosecution. 9. Sri Hegde also pointed out that the rough sketch placed on record marked at Exhibit P-9 shows that the width of the road is about 20 feet and the incident as is initiated by the prosecution could not have happened having regard to the width of the road. 10. Sri Hegde further points out that the material evidence on record of PW-5/Shrinivasa, who has partly supported the case of the prosecution, was not sufficient to prove the spot mahazar as well as the sketch and therefore sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. It is the specific contention of the revision petitioner that though accident has occurred, prosecution utterly failed to prove that it is the petitioner who is responsible for the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22113 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2018 accidental death of the victim-Sri Manjunath and therefore sought for, allowing the petition. 12. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments. 13. He would particularly point out that at the time of executing the indemnity bond-Exhibit P.10, owner of the lorry has specifically stated that petitioner is the driver of the lorry. Therefore, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner that he is not the driver of the lorry cannot be countenanced in law and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 14. He also points out that mere panch witnesses turning hostile to the case of the prosecution did not cause serious dent to the case of the prosecution and sought for dismissal of the revision. 15. Insofar as the documents that has been placed on record before the Court by the counsel for petitioner are concerned, they are the documents which were placed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, wherein the joint memo has been - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22113 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2018 filed and an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- has been awarded to the dependents of the deceased. 16. Likewise, the other documents that are placed on record are the photocopy of the sale agreement, death certificate of Marulasiddappa and the medical certificates of Pushpavathi. 17. Admittedly these documents are placed on record for the first time before this Court and therefore, they cannot be countenanced in law is the submission made by learned High Court Government Pleader. Accordingly, he seeks for dismissal of the petition in toto. 18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously. 19. On such perusal of the material on record, the road traffic accident occurred on 15.04.2014 at about 02.30 p.m. at Untoorukatte Kaimara involving the lorry bearing No.KA-02/AA- 4191 and in the said accident, Manjunath being the rider of the motorcycle died. The same has been established by placing necessary material evidence on record. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22113 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2018 20. Insofar as arguments that is put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner is not the driver of the lorry is concerned, it holds no water in view of the unequivocal testimony of PW-6, who is none other than the owner of the lorry. 21. In his evidence, he has specifically stated that about two years earlier, near Untoorukatte Kaimara, offending lorry met with an accident which has been informed to him through his writer. 22. He further deposed that in the incident one person died and another person sustained injuries and it is the accused who was the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-02/AA-4191 (offending lorry). 23. Pertinently, he has not been cross-examined on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the grounds urged in the petition cannot be countenanced in law. 24. The photographs placed on record would be sufficient enough to establish the contents of spot mahazar as well as the sketch. The offending lorry has practically moved on the right - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22113 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2018 side of the road hitting against the motorcycle. The dead body of Manjunath is also seen in the photograph. Injured eye witness has supported the case of the prosecution in toto. 25. In his cross-examination, it has been elicited that the road where the accident has taken place is a busy road and he was the pillion rider of the motorcycle. 26. He further answered that after the accident he lost his consciousness and he was taken to the hospital where he regained his consciousness. However he stated that he was not aware as to who is the driver of the lorry as he had lost his consciousness. 27. Noting these aspects of the matter, the learned Trial Magistrate held that accused has failed to offer his explanation. 28. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Magistrate found that prosecution is successful in establishing its case and culled out those incriminatory circumstances and put it across to the accused while recording the statement of the accused as is contemplated in Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22113 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2018 29. Pertinently, accused denied all the incriminatory circumstances including the accident, but failed to place on record his version about the incident. 30. Left with no alternative, learned Trial Magistrate followed the consequences in law and convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 31. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record as referred to supra, dismissed the appeal. 32. This Court, having regard to the limited powers under the revisional jurisdiction, cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter. The grounds of revision would not hold water inasmuch as there is no cross-examination of PW-6 and accused has failed to offer his version about the incident. 33. Moreover, injured eyewitness is examined who has stated about the incident. The photograph and spot mahazar tallies with each other. Therefore mere panch witnesses turning - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22113 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2018 hostile to the case of the prosecution would not be sufficient enough to upset the findings recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court that accused is responsible for accidental death of Manjunath. 34. Therefore, there is no merit in any one of the grounds raised in the revision petition. 35. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. Time is granted for the revision petitioner/accused to surrender before the Trial Court, till 10th May 2026 to serve remaining part of the sentence. iii. Office to return the Trial Court Records along with copy of this Order, forthwith. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 75