The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6498 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 927 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. SHIVASHANKARA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O SHIVASWAMY, BUS DRIVER R/O B. HATNA VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN CODE: 571 401. AND: (BY SRI. H. JAYANTH, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PERIYAPATNA POLICE, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 29.06.2013 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., PERIYAPATNA IN C.C.NO.266/2010 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6498 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2016 SECTIONS 279 AND 304(A) OF IPC AND SET ASIDE THE
Legal Reasoning
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION CONFIRMED BY ORDER DATED 24.06.2016 PASSED BY THE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE SITTING AT HUNSUR IN CRL.A.NO.198/2013 AND ALLOW THE CRL.R.P. BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 08.03.2010 at around 2.30 p.m., the accused being the driver of the KSRTC bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner on B.M. Road in front of Government Hospital, Periyapatna and passenger one K. Shivanna, who is the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6498 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2016 deceased was about to get down from the bus, he fell on the ground and sustained fatal injuries. Hence, case has been registered and police investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. 4. The accused was secured and he claimed trial and hence, the prosecution examined the witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P12(a). The accused was subjected to 313 statement and he did not choose to lead any defence evidence. 5. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, who are the passengers in the very same bus, accepted their evidence and comes to the conclusion that accused, who is the driver of the bus ought to have waited till the deceased get down from the bus and without waiting for the deceased to get down from the bus, he moved the same. As a result, accident has occurred and he sustained injury and convicted him. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, an appeal is preferred before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.198/2013. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6498 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2016 of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, confirmed the order of the Trial Court discussing the material on record, particularly in paragraph Nos.18, 19 and 20. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding and conviction and sentence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 7. The main contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that both the Courts failed to take note of evidence on record in proper perspective and committed an error believing the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. The evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that the deceased Shivanna got into the bus near Sub-registrar office and conductor told him that no stop will be given in Kampalapura and conductor also told him to stop the vehicle, to enable him to get down and when the bus was slow down, the deceased himself did not wait for stopping of bus, but suddenly he himself made an attempt to get down from the bus and accident has occurred on account of negligence on the part of the deceased himself and the same is evident from the records. When the bus was slow down, he put his one leg outside the bus, as a result, he lost control and he fell down and sustained injuries and these are the materials which are not taken note by the Trial Court and the First - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6498 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2016 Appellate Court while appreciating the evidence. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 8. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State would submit that incident is dated 08.03.2010 is not in dispute at the time of 2.30 p.m. and witnesses P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, who are the passengers of the bus categorically say that when the conductor gave signal to stop the bus and there is no stop at Kampalapura, since the said bus is an express bus, the driver though slow down the vehicle, but he suddenly moved the vehicle and hence, the accident has occurred. The Trial Court also taken note of evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and the First Appellate Court also appreciated the material on record and given the reasoning that the driver of the bus did not wait till deceased alights from the bus and before the deceased alighting from the bus, he started moving the same. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries and on account of negligence on the part of driver only, the accident has occurred and it does not require any interference. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6498 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2016 9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State and also the reasoning given by the Trial Court and grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether both the Courts committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and whether it requires interference of this Court by exercising revisional jurisdiction? (ii) What order? Point No.(i) 10. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that accident has taken place on 08.03.2010 at around 2.30 p.m. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the deceased boarded bus near Sub- registrar office of Periyapatna, when the conductor enquired his destination, he replied that he needs to go to Kampalapura and he immediately asked him to get down and he gave the signal - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6498 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2016 to the driver to stop the bus and when the bus came near hospital and slow down the bus, the deceased made an attempt to get down from the bus. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 9 is also very clear that bus was slow down without signal being given and not stopped the bus. But, at that juncture, the deceased made an attempt to get down from the bus and the very evidence of P.W.2 is very clear that he put his leg on the ground even though the bus was not stopped and there is a force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased himself ought to have waited till stopping of the bus. But, when the bus was slow down, at that time, he made an attempt to get down from the bus and the very evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 that when the bus came near Government Hospital, Periyapatna, it was stopped there and again started moving. The very evidence of P.W.2 is clear that when signal was given to stop the bus, driver of the bus slow down and in order to get down from the bus, deceased laid his one leg on the down and bus moved. But, the fact is that when bus was not stopped completely, he made an attempt to get down from the bus. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6498 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2016 11. When such material is available on record, the Trial Court ought to have taken note of said fact into consideration. Admittedly, there is no bus stop at the spot of accident and the same is admitted by the witnesses examined by the prosecution and only on the request, when the deceased wanted to get down from the bus, even though there was no stop, he made an attempt to get down from the bus, though the bus was not stopped. When such material is available on record, the Trial Court ought to have given benefit of doubt in favour of the driver, since the driver has slow down the bus accommodating the deceased, who wrongly boarded the bus and ought to have taken note of the fact that deceased also hurriedly made an attempt to get down from the bus, even though bus was not stopped. It is also important to note that all the witnesses speak about the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver and the witnesses categorically admit that when bus was slow down, it was at the speed of 20 kms. and driver of the bus slow down the bus only to accommodate the wrongly boarded passenger to alight from the bus. 12. Hence, the very contention that driver moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner cannot be accepted and the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6498 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2016 observation made by the Trial Court that the driver ought to have waited till deceased gets down from the bus is erroneous and the deceased himself alighted from the bus in a hurried manner, even though bus was not stopped. The evidence of P.W.2 is that he had put his one leg down, even though bus was not stopped and when such material on record and there is no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver and made attempt to slow down the bus, in order to accommodate the wrongly boarded passenger to get down from the bus, since the conductor gave the signal. The case of the prosecution is also that the conductor gave signal to stop the bus and before stopping the bus, the deceased himself made an attempt to get down from the bus. These materials ought to have been taken note by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and both the Courts lost sight of material on record, particularly evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, who are also villagers of the deceased and both the Courts ought to have taken note of the evidence meticulously, while appreciating their evidence, who are the villagers of the deceased and the same has not been done. 13. Hence, when there is no legal finding by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and when the order suffers - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6498 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2016 from its infirmities, the Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, it is appropriate to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused, since he has wrongly boarded the bus and the conductor also gave signal to driver to stop the bus and instead of waiting till stopping of bus, the deceased made an attempt to alight from the bus and accidentally he fell down and sustained injuries and I do not find ingredients of Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and there is no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver. Hence, there are materials to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court, when the order suffers from its legality and correctness. Therefore, I answer point No.(i) as ‘affirmative’. Point No.(ii) 14. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) The revision petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court are set aside and accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304-A IPC. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6498 CRL.RP No. 927 of 2016 (iii) If any fine amount is deposited by the revision petitioner, the same is ordered to be refunded to him on proper identification. (iv) The bail bond executed by the revision petitioner stands cancelled. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59