The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20730 CRL.RP No. 539 of 2018 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 539 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI M RAJESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O. SRI M. SRINIVAS R/AT. #F 74, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ROAD SAUDAMINI LAYOUT, KONANAKUNTE BENGALURU – 560 062. …PETITIONER Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI SATYANARAYANA CHALKE S, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE STATION BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BANGALORE – 560 001. (BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2015 PASSED BY THE C.J.M., BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN C.C.No.7832/2013 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CRL.A.No.9/2015 RURAL SUSTAINING THE JUDGMENT, CONVICTION AND SENTENCE, BANGALORE DISTRICT, IN - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20730 CRL.RP No. 539 of 2018 HC-KAR ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279, 304A OF IPC AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 24.04.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.9/2015 by the I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore where under the judgment of conviction dated 05.01.2015 passed in C.C.No.7832/2013 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC and sentence passed thereon came
Legal Reasoning
to be affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent – State. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.06.2013 at about 5.00 p.m. on NICE road, near Beguru Naidu - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20730 CRL.RP No. 539 of 2018 HC-KAR Bridge, the petitioner being driver of Swift Car Bearing No.AP-09-BT-3244 drove it towards Electronic City from Bannerghatta in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and hit to a motor cycle bearing No.KA-06-W-3918 being driven by the deceased namely G.Shivakumar, s/o Gangadharaiah who fell on the road, sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 4. The prosecution in order to prove the charges has examined six witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. The trial Court appreciating the evidence on record has convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. The trial Court has ordered both the sentences to run concurrently. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20730 CRL.RP No. 539 of 2018 HC-KAR 5. The petitioner/accused aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.9/2015 and the same came to be dismissed by judgment dated 24.04.2018. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the evidence on record will not establish the offences alleged against the petitioner. There are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased has not been examined. The cause of death has not been proved. The post mortem report has been marked in the evidence of PW.2 - investigating officer. The motor cycle of the deceased had sustained damage on its front side and the same would indicate that the petitioner’s vehicle has not dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased to its back side. The presence of the eye witnesses namely PWs.1 and 5 on the spot itself is doubtful. The deceased was initially taken to Blossom Hospital and thereafter he has been taken to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20730 CRL.RP No. 539 of 2018 HC-KAR Apollo Hospital wherein he is reported as brought dead. The prosecution has not placed any documents regarding the treatment given to the deceased in the said hospitals. With this he prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and acquit the petitioner. 7. Learned HCGP would contend that PW.1 and PW.5, first informant are witnesses to the incident. They have specifically stated in their evidence regarding the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and dashing it to the motor cycle of the deceased. PW.1 in his cross- examination has stated that the accused was driving his vehicle in 75-80 kms speed. The Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of deceased has opined that the cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained. The Motor Vehicle Inspector has opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of both the motor vehicles involved in the accident. The trial Court and the appellate Court appreciated the evidence - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20730 CRL.RP No. 539 of 2018 HC-KAR and have passed the impugned judgment. There are no grounds to allow this revision petition. With this he prayed to dismiss the revision petition. 8. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, this Court has perused the impugned judgment and trial Court records. 9. The accident occurred on 21.06.2013 at about 5.00 p.m. on Bannerghatta and Electronic City road i.e. NICE road. The deceased was going on his motor cycle bearing No.KA-06-W-3918 in the NICE road from Bannerghatta to Electronic City and the accused was driving his car bearing No.AP-09-BT-3244 from Bannerghatta towards Electronic City and dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased from hind side. The injured Shivakumar was taken to Blossom Hospital and from there he has been taken to Apollo Hospital wherein he is reported to have brought dead. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20730 CRL.RP No. 539 of 2018 HC-KAR 10. PW.5 is the first informant and he is a Security Officer of NICE. He has filed first information before the police on 21.06.2013 at 8.50 p.m. The first information is at Ex.P8 wherein it is stated that accused drove his Swift Car in high speed and in rash and negligent manner dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased on middle part, as a result motor cycle and the rider fell down and rider sustained injury on his head, ear and leg. The first informant has been examined as PW.5 who has deposed regarding he witnessing the incident and filing of first information. Nothing has been elicited in his cross- examination to disbelieve his evidence. PW.1 is also one of the pancha to the spot mahazar – Ex.P1 and he has deposed regarding police drawing of spot mahazar as shown by him. The sketch of the spot is at Ex.P4. In Exs.P1 and P4 there is mention of tyre mark on the road and the said tyre marks are of the car. The said aspect itself indicate that the petitioner was driving his car in a - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20730 CRL.RP No. 539 of 2018 HC-KAR high speed and inspite applying brake, he dashed his car to the motor cycle of the deceased. 11. PW.1 is also an eye witness to the incident and he has deposed the manner in which the accident occurred. He has stated that it was going on his front side and the swift car came in a high speed and dashed to the motor cycle and he saw it. In the cross-examination he stated that the car was driven in a speed of 75 – 80 kms
Legal Reasoning
and the motor cycle at a speed of 40 to 50 kms. In the cross-examination of PW.1 he has answered the suggestions as under: “PÉJ-06-qÀ§Æèå-3918 ªÉÆÃmÁgï ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï £À£Àß ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ JAzÀgÉ ¤d. »AzÀÄUÀqɬÄAzÀ §gÀÄwÛzÀÝ ªÀiÁgÀÄw PÁgï ªÉÃUÀªÁV §AzÀÄ ªÉÆÃmÁgï §ÉÊPï£À »AzÀÄUÀqÉ rQÌ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É JAzÀgÉ ¤d”. 12. In the said cross-examination the counsel for the accused has suggested that motor cycle bearing No.KA- 06-W-3918 was going on front side and the car came from - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:20730 CRL.RP No. 539 of 2018 HC-KAR hind side in speed and dashed to the motor cycle on its back. The said suggestion itself amounts to admission of the manner of the accident by the petitioner – accused. 13. Merely because the motor cycle driven by the deceased was found with damages on front side, it cannot be said that the car of the accused has not dashed to the motor cycle on its hind side. More so, in Ex.P8 – first information, it is stated that the car has dashed to the middle portion of the motor cycle. The said damages to the motor cycle have been sustained when it fell on the road. As per the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report at Ex.P5, the car of the accused had sustained damage on its front side which indicates that the front side of the car dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased. The death of the deceased in the accident is not disputed. The deceased died on the same day of the accident. The Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of deceased has opined that the cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:20730 CRL.RP No. 539 of 2018 HC-KAR injuries sustained. Merely because the Doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased is not examined, it cannot be said that the death has no nexus to the accident. From all these aspects, the trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the judgment of conviction. The appellate Court also re-appreciated the evidence on record taking into consideration all contentions of the appellant/accused and rightly dismissed the appeal of the appellant/accused. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC is affirmed. 14. Petitioner was aged 33 years as on the date of accident. The accident took place in May, 2013 i.e., 12 years ago. The petitioner has undergone trial for 12 years. Now the petitioner is aged about 45 years having responsibilities of the family. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is having two minor school going children and aged parents. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:20730 CRL.RP No. 539 of 2018 HC-KAR 15. Considering the said aspect sentence requires to be modified for imprisonment for one day, till the raising of the Court with fine of Rs.3,00,000/- for offence under Section 304-A of IPC and fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 279 of IPC. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- has to be paid to C.W.8 – Smt. S. Sushma wife of deceased G.Shivakumar, as provided under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
Decision
In the result, the following; O R D E R i) Revision Petition is allowed in part. Order of conviction for offence under Section 279 and 304–A of IPC is affirmed. ii) While affirming the conviction of the petitioner – accused for offence under Section 304-A of IPC the sentence imposed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court is modified to one day imprisonment, till the raising of the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:20730 CRL.RP No. 539 of 2018 HC-KAR Court with fine of Rs.3,00,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months. iii) While affirming the *Conviction of the petitioner-accused for offence under Section 279 of IPC the sentence imposed by the trial Court is modified only to fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 days. iv) Out of the said amount collected, a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- is ordered to paid as compensation to C.W.8 – Smt. Sushma, wife of deceased G.Shivakumar as provided under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. v) The petitioner – accused has to surrender himself before the trial Court before commencement of the Court to serve the order of imprisonment for 1 day, till the raising of the *Corrected vide chamber order dated 24.06.2025. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:20730 CRL.RP No. 539 of 2018 HC-KAR Court and has to deposit the fine amount prior to the date of surrender. vi) The trial Court shall secure C.W.8 – Smt. Sushma, wife of deceased G. Shivakumar for disbursement of the compensation to her. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DKB/LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34