The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1223 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SRI NAGI REDDY SON OF CHINNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.15 BEERESHWARASWAMY NILAY, AKSYANAGAR, RAMAMURTHYNAGAR, BANGALORE-560016 (BY SRI.GOPI.P.M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SIDDAMALLAPPA.P.M, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY KARNATAKA NANDAGUDI POLICE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT THROUGH SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. ...PETITIONER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, CONVICTION AND SENTENCE RECORDED ON 26.12.2013 BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HOSKOTE IN C.C.NO.95/2010 TO THE EXTENT OF CONVICTING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279,338 AND 304-A OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279,338 AND 304-A OF IPC AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED: 18.07.2019 PASSED - 2 - BY CRL.APPEAL NO.05/2014 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONSS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.04.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CAV ORDER In this petition filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C., petitioner who is accused before the trial Court
Legal Reasoning
has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304 of IPC imposed by the trial Court which came to be confirmed by the Sessions Court, by dismissing the appeal filed by him. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 3. A charge sheet came to be filed against the accused by Nandagudi police alleging that on 28.01.2010 at 8.45 a.m, accused being the driver of Tata Tipper Lorry No.AP-26-U-3373 (for short "offending vehicle”), drove the same in a rash or negligent manner from Kolar side towards Bengaluru on NH-4 and at Tarikere village while - 3 - trying to overtake Hero Honda Passion plus motorcycle bearing registration No.KA–43-J–4062 (for short "motorcycle") from left side and dashed against the said motorcycle, as a result of which Manjunath who was riding motorcycle fell down and the rear right back wheel of the offending vehicle passed over his head and he died on the spot. In the said accident, pillion rider CW-2 Prakash Alias Puneeth sustained grievous injuries and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC. 4. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial. 5. In order to prove the allegations against accused, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs-1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to 17. 6. During the course of his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused has denied incriminating evidence led by the prosecution. 7. Accused has not led any defence evidence. - 4 - 8. The trial Court accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC and the sentence the accused as detailed in the order. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the accused approached the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.5/2014. However, the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal and thereby upheld the judgment and order of the trial Court. 10. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the trial Court and Sessions Court, the accused is before the Court, contending that the same is capricious, vexatious, perverse and bad in law. They are arbitrary in nature and bad for lack of proper and convincing reasons. The prosecution has failed to establish that there was a rash or negligence on the part of the accused in the cause of accident, especially when it is established that construction work of broadening of road was going on. Viewed from any angle, the judgment and order are not sustainable and hence the appeal. - 5 - 11. On the other hand learned HCGP supported the impugned Judgment and order and sought for dismissal of the petitioner. 12. The evidence led by the prosecution prove that on 28.01.2010 at around 8.30 am, accident took place involving the motorcycle and offending vehicle and in the said accident, the rider of the motorcycle died on the spot and the pillion rider sustained injuries. Having regard to the defence taken by the accused that road broadening work was going on and both sides of the road were dug and jelly was spread on both sides and therefore it was not possible for any vehicle to go in a high speed or in a negligent manner, the accused is also admitting the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. 13. However, the prosecution has not established the fact that it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle when the accident took place. The evidence of PW-1 Prakash who is injured in the accident clearly indicate that after the accident, due to the impact, he sustained injury and lost consciousness and he could not see who was - 6 - driving the offending vehicle. Though he has clearly stated that accident occurred due to the fault of driver of the offending vehicle when he tried to overtake the motorcycle and he has also deposed that had the driver of the offending vehicle stayed in the line in which he was moving accident ought not have occurred, he has not identified accused as driver of the offending vehicle. In fact, in the deposition a specific observation is made by the Court that the witness has not identified the accused in the open Court as being the driver of the offending vehicle. His evidence clearly indicate that after the impact he sustained injuries and lost consciousness and therefore, there was no occasion for him to see the driver of the offending vehicle, even after the accident. 14. Unfortunately, the prosecution has not examined any other witness regarding the actual accident. The investigating officer has cited CW-10 Muniyappa as an eye witness to the accident, he is also not examined. However, his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C also does not state that he has identified the driver of the - 7 - offending vehicle, though he has stated that after the accident, the lorry was stopped by the side of the road. The investigating officer has also not cited the owner of the offending vehicle, who would have spoken about the person to whom the offending vehicle was given for driving. In the above circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish that accused was the driver of the offending vehicle, though it has proved that accident occurred due to the rash or negligence driving of the offending vehicle. When the prosecution has failed to establish that accused was the driver of the offending vehicle, any amount of evidence regarding the spot mahazar, post-mortem examination would not be of any help. 15. Though the evidence of PW-5 B.M.Somanna prove the fact that he registered the case and transmitted FIR to the Court, CW-16 and CW 17, who have conducted further investigation and filed the charge sheet are not examined. Consequently, the prosecution has not placed evidence on record as to how the investigation officers - 8 - came to know about the involvement of accused in the crime in question and implicated him. Thus despite the fact that the prosecution has proved that the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, it has failed to prove that accused was the driver of the offending vehicle when the accident took place. 16. The trial Court as well as the Sessions Court have failed to give a definite finding that it was the accused who was the driver of offending vehicle when the accident took place and was responsible for causing the accident. Only on the basis that the offending vehicle is involved in the accident, both Courts have proceeded to convict and the sentence the accused. This aspect of the matter is perverse and contrary to the evidence placed on record. Therefore, the concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court regarding implication of accused in the offence is not sustainable and it is liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction and accordingly the following; - 9 -
Decision
ORDER (i) Petition filed by the accused under Section 397 with 401 Cr.P.C is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 26.12.2013 in C.C.No.95/2010 on the file of Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote and judgment and order dated 18.07.2019 in Crl.A.No.5/2014 on the file of VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rular District, Bangalore, are set aside. (iii) Consequently, the accused is acquitted. His bail bond stands discharged. (iv) The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court as well as Sessions Court records along with copy of this order forthwith. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE ASN