Karnataka High Court
Sri Balaji vs State By Kunigal Police on 8 April, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14994
CRL.RP No. 870 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 870 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. BALAJI,
S/O C. NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED 30 YEARS,
R/O D. KALENAHALLI,
KASABA HOBLI, C.R.PATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 617 231.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATHYA D., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. V. NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY KUNIGAL POLICE,
KUNIGAL,
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 25.7.2015 PASSED BY
THE II ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., TUMKUR IN CRL.A.NO.42/2014
AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF
SENTENCE DATED 25.3.2014 PASSED BY THE ADDL. C.J. AND
J.M.F.C., KUNIGAL IN C.C.NO.60/2010.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14994
CRL.RP No. 870 of 2015
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner/accused who is convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC is
before this Court.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 19.10.2010 at
about 6:45 a.m. the accused being the driver of the Tata Sumo,
drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger
the human life and while trying to overtake two wheeler which was
proceeding in front of the vehicle, dashed against the tanker lorry
coming from the opposite side, and also dashed against the two
wheeler which was going on the left side of the road. As a result of
which, three vehicles were damaged and the pillion rider of the
motorcycle fell down and sustained grievous injuries and
succumbed to the same.
3. The prosecution to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to
7 and marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P14. The trial Court after
appreciating the evidence on record held that the prosecution has
established the guilt of the petitioner/accused beyond all
reasonable doubt and passed the judgment of conviction which
was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. Against which, the
present revision petition is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
NC: 2024:KHC:14994
5. P.W.1 who is the eyewitness to the incident is said to
have been standing near the shop at a distance of 25 ft. from the
place of the accident and in his cross examination, he has
categorically admitted that he saw the Tata Sumo vehicle of which
the petitioner was driving from the distance of 25 ft. and there was
distance of 10 ft. between Tata Sumo and the motorcycle and saw
the tanker coming from the opposite direction which was at a
distance of 20 ft. He has further admitted that there was a distance
of 5 ft. between the motorcycle and the Tata Sumo vehicle at the
time when Tata Sumo dashed against the tanker coming from the
opposite direction. He has further admitted that the Tata Sumo
vehicle of which the petitioner/accused was driving was on the left
side of the road. He has further stated that after the accident, due
to the impact, the motorcycle fell into a ditch. But, at that time of
drawing the mahazar, the vehicles which were involved in the
accident were parked by the side of the road.
6. P.W.2, injured witness who was the rider of the
motorcycle, in his cross examination has stated that since the
documents of the tanker were defective and also the driver of the
tanker was not possessing a valid driving license, complaint was
filed against the petitioner/accused who was driving the Tata Sumo
vehicle.
7. A perusal of the spot sketch at Ex.P14 indicated that
the road on which the accident had taken place was 24 ft. wide,
and from the spot of accident, the motorcycle had fallen at a
distance of 20 ft., and the Tata Sumo Vehicle was parked at about
NC: 2024:KHC:14994
a distance of 30 ft. from the spot of the accident. The evidence of
P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the spot sketch does not establish that
the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving
by the petitioner/accused, on account of which the pillion rider of
the motorcycle died. In the absence of conclusive proof that the
accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the
petitioner/accused, the judgment of conviction passed by the trial
Court and confirmed by the Sessions Court is unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal revision petition is allowed.
ii. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 25.03.2014 passed by the Addl. Civil
Judge and JMFC, Kunigal in C.C.No.60/2010 and the
judgment dated 25.07.2015 passed by the II Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in
Crl.A.No.42/2014 are hereby set aside and the
petitioner/accused is acquitted of the aforesaid offence.
iii. Bails bonds, if any executed, stands
cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RKA,
