Karnataka High Court
Mallayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408
CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200075 OF 2023
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MALLAYYA S/O SHANTAPPA HIREMATH
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O GUNAKI VILLAGE,
TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANGOLI NAGANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. S.P.P.
KALABURAGI BENCH,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH TRAFFIC P.S.,
Digitally signed VIJAYAPUR-586101.
by RENUKA ...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN., HCGP)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., UNDER
SECTION 438-BNSS(NEW) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.268/2020 BY IV-
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., VIJAYAPUR, DATED
04.06.2022 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.44/2022 DATED 10.04.2023
BY IV-ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA FOR
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279, 304(A), OF IPC AND
UNDER SECTION 187 OF M.V.ACT, AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408
CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned revision petition is by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.268/2020 affirmed by Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.44/2022 thereby sentencing the petitioner to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, in default of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days, to undergo a simple imprisonment for a term of six months with fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, in default of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 02 months and fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence punishable under Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, in default of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2023 HC-KAR
2. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.10.2018 at about 2:30 p.m., on Vijapura-Indi Main Road, the accused, being the driver of a KSRTC bus, while proceeding towards Indi on a 30-feet wide road, allegedly swerved the vehicle to the extreme right side of the road and collided with a two-wheeler ridden by the deceased, resulting in his instantaneous death. Based on the information furnished by the first informant, a case was registered in Crime No.178/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC and Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. Upon completion of investigation, the police laid the charge sheet against the accused.
3. After supply of charge-sheet copies as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the accused having pleaded not guilty, was tried for the said offences. The prosecution examined the complainant, who is the brother of the -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2023 HC-KAR deceased, and two purported eye-witnesses, P.W.3 and P.W.4, along with other official witnesses. The accused was thereafter examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
4. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, was of the view that the testimonies of P.W.3 and P.W.4 were consistent and free from material contradictions and that the documentary evidence corroborated the oral version of the prosecution witnesses. The Court further held that the prosecution had clearly established that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus by the accused. Consequently, by judgment and order dated 04.06.2022, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The said conviction and sentence were affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.44/2022.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2023 HC-KAR
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that both the Courts below have misappreciated the evidence on record. It is argued that the road in question is 30 feet wide, providing ample space for the deceased to avoid the collision. Inviting attention to Ex.P-8 (photographs), it is submitted that the point of impact was well within the petitioner's correct lane, thereby ruling out rashness or negligence on his part. It is further contended that the so-called eye-witnesses were not named in the FIR, which seriously undermines their credibility. Learned counsel would submit that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients constituting rash and negligent driving.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) supports the concurrent findings of both Courts below. Placing reliance on the evidence of the two eye-witnesses and the documents on record, the learned HCGP submits that the judgment of conviction and -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2023 HC-KAR sentence do not call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP at length and perused the entire material on record.
8. Point for Determination:
Whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below holding that the petitioner was driving the KSRTC bus in a rash and negligent manner suffer from any perversity, patent illegality, or misappreciation of evidence warranting interference under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C.?
9. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the oral testimony of P.W.3 and P.W.4, claimed to be eye- witnesses to the occurrence, and the documentary evidence comprising the spot mahazar (Ex.P-6) and photographs (Ex.P-8). A careful perusal of Ex.P-8 reveals that the point of impact is located at approximately 24 feet from one edge of the 30-foot-wide road, leaving a -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2023 HC-KAR remaining 6 feet of space on the opposite side for vehicles approaching from the other direction. It is an admitted position that the deceased was riding a motorcycle at the relevant time.
10. Though Ex.P-8 indicates the point of impact as being towards the right side of the KSRTC bus, it is of significance that the photographs were taken from a considerable distance. The images do not capture any close-up view of the tyre impressions, blood marks, or skid marks so as to pinpoint the precise locus of collision between the bus and the two-wheeler. The prosecution's own documents, including the sketch and mahazar, record the width of the road as 30 feet. When viewed in conjunction with the photographs, the materials unmistakably disclose that even at the alleged point of impact, a clear 6-foot width of road remained available to the deceased. Hence, the prosecution's own exhibits demonstrate that the deceased, while riding a motorcycle, -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2023 HC-KAR had sufficient space to swerve or maneuver and thereby avoid the collision.
11. Another crucial infirmity that substantially weakens the prosecution case is that the FIR does not name P.W.3 or P.W.4 as eye-witnesses. Their subsequent introduction during trial, without any explanation for their omission in the earliest version, casts serious doubt on their presence at the scene of occurrence. The absence of corroboration from any independent witness further compounds this defect. Both the Courts below have failed to appreciate this material inconsistency, which goes to the root of the prosecution case.
12. There is also a total absence of reliable material to establish that the petitioner was driving the bus at excessive speed or in a manner indicating loss of control or recklessness. The physical evidence contained in Ex.P-8 and the spot sketch clearly suggest that the bus was proceeding on its left side of the road, consistent with -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2023 HC-KAR normal driving discipline. It is trite that for a conviction under Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution must establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the act of the accused was both rash and negligent, directly causing the death of another. The mere fact that an accident has occurred does not ipso facto render the driver criminally liable. The prosecution must demonstrate culpable negligence or rashness, which is conspicuously absent in the present case.
13. Both the Courts below have placed undue and uncritical reliance on the oral evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, without scientifically analyzing the documentary materials forming part of the prosecution case. A meticulous scrutiny of Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-8 unmistakably reveals that the bus was substantially within its lane and that the deceased had sufficient space, on a 30-foot-wide road, to maneuver his motorcycle and avert the collision. The conclusion drawn by the Courts below that the accident occurred solely due to the petitioner's rash and negligent act is therefore
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2023 HC-KAR based on conjecture rather than concrete proof. The omission to name the eye-witnesses in the FIR, coupled with lack of corroboration and objective evidence of rash driving, raises reasonable doubt which must necessarily enure to the benefit of the accused.
14. The principle of "last opportunity to avoid accident" also assumes relevance in cases of this nature. If, as the evidence indicates, the deceased had a 6-foot clear space available to him even at the alleged point of impact and the road was straight and unobstructed, it cannot be ignored that the deceased too had an opportunity to regulate his speed or alter his course to avoid the mishap. The photographs demonstrate a straight stretch of road with adequate visibility. The failure of the deceased to take evasive action further casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution's version as to the manner in which the accident occurred.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2023 HC-KAR
15. This Court is therefore of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish rash or negligent driving on the part of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are mechanical and not supported by any credible or scientific analysis of the evidence on record. Both Courts appear to have proceeded merely on the premise that since the petitioner was admittedly driving the bus involved in the accident, he must be responsible for the death, an inference that is wholly unsustainable in criminal jurisprudence.
16. The Magistrate, in convicting the petitioner, has overlooked vital documentary evidence such as Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-8, which clearly depict that the bus was not recklessly driven. The Appellate Court, in turn, has failed to perform its statutory duty of independently reassessing the evidence, and has merely reiterated the findings of the Trial Court without due scrutiny. Such perfunctory affirmation renders the concurrent findings perverse,
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2023 HC-KAR unsustainable, and contrary to settled principles of criminal law.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner's act amounted to rash and negligent driving under Section 304-A IPC. The conviction recorded by both Courts is based on misreading of material evidence, omission to consider Ex.P-8 in its proper perspective, and failure to appreciate the width and nature of the road, which conclusively negate the allegation of rashness. Hence, the following:
ORDER i. The revision petition is allowed. ii. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.06.2022 passed by the learned IV-Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapura, in C.C.No.268/2020, as affirmed by the learned IV-Additional District
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2023 HC-KAR and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, in Criminal Appeal No.44/2022, are hereby set aside. iii. The petitioner/accused is acquitted of all the charges.
iv. The bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. v. The sureties, if any, are discharged. vi. The fine amount, if deposited, shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2 CT:SI