The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19419 CRL.RP No. 443 of 2017 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 443 OF 2017 BETWEEN: G. ESHWAR S/O SUBBA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, KSRTC DRIVER, DHARMASTHALA DEPOT R/O LYNAKLIDU GRAMA, HARIHAR PALLATTADAKKA POST, SULLYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. (BY SRI. SATHVIK M., ADV. FOR SRI. SATYANARAYANA CHALKE S., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PSI HONNALI POLICE STATION, HONNALI (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYAN A., HCGP RESPONDENT/STATE.) FOR THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 02.01.2014 IN C.C.NO.338/2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNALI, CONVICTING - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19419 CRL.RP No. 443 of 2017 HC-KAR THE PETR. FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 279,337,338,304A OF IPC AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2016 IN CRL.A.NO.10/2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. DIST. AND S.J., DAVANAGERE DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER Revision petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in C.C.No.338/2011 dated 02.01.2014 by the Court of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Honnali (hereinafter
Legal Reasoning
referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) which is confirmed by the Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Davangere in Criminal Appeal No.10/2014 dated 24.08.2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision petition are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this Revision Petition are that the Honnali Police have registered the case - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19419 CRL.RP No. 443 of 2017 HC-KAR against accused for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 28.01.2011 in the early hours at around 1.30 am, the accused being the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-19-F-2805 drove it on the Honnali-Harihara road from Honnali towards Harihara in a high speed, rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and when the bus came near the A.K. Colony, it dashed to a Mini Lorry bearing registration No.KA-35-9293 which was coming from the opposite direction. Due to the impact Devlanaik who was travelling in the cabin of the lorry sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to injuries at
Legal Reasoning
the spot. The driver of the mini lorry CW.9 Mr. Ganesh and CW.10 Mr. Meetyanaik who were seated in the cabin sustained grievous and simple injuries. Thus, accused has committed the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19419 CRL.RP No. 443 of 2017 HC-KAR 4. After filing of charge sheet, the case was registered against this accused in C.C.No.338/2011 and summons was issued to him. In pursuance of summons, accused appeared before the Trial Court and enlarged on bail. Charges framed and read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the case of prosecution, in all, 7 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 7 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. He has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the alleged offences and sentence was passed accordingly. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred appeal before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Davangere in Criminal Appeal No.10/2014 which came to be - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19419 CRL.RP No. 443 of 2017 HC-KAR dismissed on 24.08.2016. Being aggrieved by the judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by both the Courts, the revision petitioner/accused has preferred this present revision petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner would submit that both the Courts have not applied their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Both the Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective. The alleged eye-witnesses i.e. PWs.1 to 4 have not deposed anything as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 7. Further, he would submit that PW.5- Meetyanaik who is an injured witness has deposed his evidence that lorry was parked near the river of Honnali and at that time, a government bus came from Honnali and dashed to the lorry from front side. PW.3 - Ganeshnaik who is also an injured witness has not deposed as to the rash and negligent act on the part of driver of government bus, but - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19419 CRL.RP No. 443 of 2017 HC-KAR he simply stated that the driver of the said bus drove the same in high speed, but the exact speed of the bus is not disclosed by him. 8. PW.7 - Rajunaik who is the complainant has deposed his evidence that the driver of the bus came and dashed to the parked lorry causing accident. Thus, there is no consistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, whether the lorry was stationery or was it kinetic. Absolutely there are no evidence to attract the alleged commission of offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code against the accused. However, the Trial Court has convicted the accused. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the revision petition. 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19419 CRL.RP No. 443 of 2017 HC-KAR the Appellate Court. On this ground, he sought to dismiss the revision petition. 10. Having heard the arguments advanced on both sides and on perusal of the material placed before me, the following points would arise for my consideration. i. Whether the revision petitioner/accused has made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court as the same is illegal, perverse, capricious and suffers from legal infirmities? ii. What order? 11. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1: in affirmative Point No.2: as per final order. Regarding point No.1: 12. I have carefully examined the material placed before me. 13. The case of the prosecution is that Honnali Police have registered case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19419 CRL.RP No. 443 of 2017 HC-KAR 304A of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 28.01.2011 at around 1.30 a.m., the accused, driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-19-F-2805 drove it on the Honnali-Harihara road from Honnali towards Harihara in a high speed, rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and when the bus came near the A.K. Colony, it dashed to a Mini Lorry bearing registration No.KA-35-9293 which was coming from the opposite direction. Due to the impact of the accident, inmates of the cabin of the lorry, Devlanaik sustained gatal injuries and succumbed to injuries at the spot and the driver of the mini lorry CW.9 Mr. Ganesh and CW.10 Meetyanaik, sustained grievous and simple injuries. 14. PW.1-Krishnanaik and PW.2-Vamadev have deposed in their evidence as to the conduct of mahazar as per Ex.P1. PW.3-Ganeshnaik who is injured, has deposed that about two years back, at about 1.00 a.m., he was proceeding in a mini lorry from Basarahalli Tanda towards - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19419 CRL.RP No. 443 of 2017 HC-KAR Chikkamagaluru by loading manure along with Devalanaika, Rajunaika and Geethlanaika and when they came near Malebennur, from Honnali side, one KSRTC bus came in a high speed and dashed towards right side of the lorry. As a result, he has received injuries to his legs, one Devalanaika died on spot and Meetyanaika also sustained injuries. The lorry was damaged and he has taken treatment in Davangere hospital. The accident occurred due to the fault of bus driver and he has not seen the driver. 15. PW.5-Meetyanaika has deposed in his evidence that he was proceeding in a lorry from Harihara to Chikkamagaluru and the lorry was driven by driver Ganeshnaika. There were four inmates in the lorry and the lorry was parked near the river of Honnali, at that time, a KSRTC bus came from Honnali and dashed to the front side of the lorry. As a result, he has received injuries to his legs and Ganeshnaika also sustained injuries. Thereafter, he was shifted to Malebennur hospital and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:19419 CRL.RP No. 443 of 2017 HC-KAR remaining were shifted to Davangere hospital. The accident occurred due to fault of the driver of the bus and he has not seen the bus driver. 16. PW.7- Rajunaika has deposed in his evidence that about two years back, he was proceeding in a lorry along with other four persons. The lorry was parked and the bus came and dashed to this lorry and as a result, he has received injuries and one Raghu also sustained grievous injuries to his both legs. They have taken treatment in the hospital. This accident occurred due to the fault of driver of the bus. After filing the complaint, the police came to the spot and conducted panchanama as per Ex.P1. 17. PW.4 - C D Rajachari, PSI and PW.6 - M P Nagaraj, police officials, have deposed as to their respective investigation. 18. On the basis of the complaint filed by PW.7- Rajunaika, the Honnali Police have registered the case in crime No.23/2011 against the accused Eshwara, driver of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:19419 CRL.RP No. 443 of 2017 HC-KAR the bus bearing registration No.KA-19-F-2805 and submitted the First Information Report to the Court on 28.01.2011 at 2.00 p.m. In Ex.P7-complaint, it is stated that a mini lorry was proceeding from Basanahalli Tanda towards Chikkamagaluru and one KSRTC bus came in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the lorry. PW.7-Rajunaika who is the complainant has deposed that the bus was coming from opposite side and the driver of the lorry stopped their lorry and the driver of the lorry Ganeshnaika has not deposed that he has stopped the lorry before this accident. The material witnesses have not deposed as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus. They have also not deposed as to how the accident occurred. They have simply stated that the accident occurred due to fault of the driver of KSRTC bus and exact speed of the bus is also not disclosed by the driver of lorry i.e. PW.3- Ganeshnaika. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:19419 CRL.RP No. 443 of 2017 HC-KAR 19. On reconsideration/re-evaluation and re- appreciation of the entire evidence on record, there is no cogent, convincing, corroborative evidence before this Court to prove the guilt of the accused. The evidence placed by the prosecution is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the bus. Both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court warrants interference by this Court as the same is illegal, perverse, capricious and suffers from legal infirmities. Hence, I answer point No.1 in affirmative. Regarding point No.2: 20. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is allowed. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:19419 CRL.RP No. 443 of 2017 HC-KAR ii. Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 02.01.2014 passed in C.C.No.338/2011 by the Court of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Honnali, which is confirmed by the judgment dated 24.08.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.10/2014 by the Court of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Davangere, are set aside. iii. Revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. iv. The fine amount if any, deposited by the revision be petitioner/accused refunded to him in accordance with law. shall v. Registry is directed to send copy of this order along with trial court records to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42