Karnataka High Court
Sendil Kumar vs The State By Malur Police on 10 April, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14611
CRL.RP No. 1620 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1620 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SENDIL KUMAR,
SON OF CHINNAMUTHU,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT DASARAHALLI VILLAGE,
ICHANGURU POST, HOSUR TALUK,
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU - 635 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.V. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE BY MALUR POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by B (BY SRI. THEJETH P, HCGP)
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.11.2016 PASSED BY THE
PRL. DSIT. AND S.J., KOLAR IN CRL.A.NO.66/2015 AND ALSO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
5.12.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. C.J. AND J.M.F.C., MALUR IN
C.C.NO.553/2013 THEREBY CONVICTING AND SENTENCING THE
PETR. FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 279, 338 AND 304A OF IPC BY
ALLOWING THIS CRL.R.P. AND ACQUIT THE PETR. FROM THE
CONVICTED OFFENCES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14611
CRL.RP No. 1620 of 2016
ORDER
The petitioner/accused who is convicted for the offences
punishable under sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC and sentenced to
pay fine is before this Court.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 31.03.2013 at about
6.00 p.m., near Ibranahalli gate, Malur to Hosakote public road, when
CW1 who was a pillion rider was proceeding along with the deceased
Venkataramanappa on his two wheeler bearing Reg.No.KA-01-W-3824,
the petitioner/accused being a driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-70-
A-6933, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from Hosakote
side, and dashed against the motor cycle, due to which, the pillion rider
sustained injuries and the rider Venkataramanappa succumbed to the
injuries.
3. The prosecution to prove its case, examined eight
witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 8, and exhibited documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P9a.
4. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record
held that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond
all reasonable doubt, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed by the
appellate Court, against which, the present writ petition is filed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
HCGP for the State.
6. P.W.1 who is the eye witness to the incident stated that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the
petitioner/accused, and nothing was elicited in his cross examination to
disbelieve his statement. P.W.2 who is another eye witness to the
incident did not supported the case of prosecution, and has stated that
NC: 2024:KHC:14611
the rider of the motor cycle dashed against the lorry of which the
petitioner/accused was the driver. Nothing was elicited in his cross
examination to disbelieve his statement.
7. Ex.P1 is the spot mahazar, and in the spot mahazar, there
are no details indicating the exact place of accident, except stating that
the accident had taken place on the road, which is 16 feet wide Ex.P9 is
the spot sketch indicating that the accident had taken place on the right
side of the road. However, the same is not corroborated in the Ex.P1-
Spot Mahazar. P.Ws.3 and 4 were the witnesses to the spot mahazar,
and they turned hostile, and nothing was elicited to disbelieve their
statement that the spot mahazar was drawn in their presence.
8. The complaint was lodged by C.W.1, who was the pillion
rider, and he was not examined by the prosecution, and in the complaint
he has stated that after the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle
fled from the spot in his vehicle. However, in the spot mahazar, it is
indicated that the offending vehicle was parked on the left side of the
road near the place of accident. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate of C.W.1
wherein it is stated that C.W.1 sustained injuries in a road traffic accident
at 6.00 p.m. between the tempo and two wheeler. However, the
offending vehicle in question is the lorry. The C.W.1 who was the injured
witness has not been examined by the prosecution, since the
prosecution has failed to secure his presence. The evidence of P.W.1
and 2, and the documents at Ex.P1-spot mahazar, and Ex.P5-wound
certificate indicated that there are contradictions in the manner in which
the accident had taken place and also the identity of the vehicle which
was involved in the accident. Therefore, in the absence of cogent
evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
petitioner/accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, the
NC: 2024:KHC:14611
impugned judgment convicting the petitioner/accused is not sustainable
in law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
ii. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
05.12.2015 in C.C.No.553/2013 passed by the Court of
Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Maluru and the judgment
dated 09.11.2016 in Crl.A.No.66/2015 passed by the
Court of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Kolar are set
aside.
iii. The petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304-A of IPC.
iv. Bail bond executed, if any, stands cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JS
CT: BHK
