Karnataka High Court
Nagaraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2312
CRL.RP No. 100113 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100113 OF 2016 (397)
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJ S/O. MALLIKARJUN BANKALLI,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: HULAGINAKOPPA, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASHANT V. MOGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397
Digitally
VIJAYALAXMI signed by
M BHAT VIJAYALAXMI
R/W SEC.401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
M BHAT
PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE HAVERI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL 62/2014 DATED
30/04/2016 IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL BY CONFIRMING THE
ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO. 173/2010 DATED
19/08/2014, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC HANGAL.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2312
CRL.RP No. 100113 of 2016
ORDER
1. This revision petition under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is filed with a prayer to set
aside the Judgment and order of conviction and sentences
passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC-VI,
Hangal, in Criminal Case No.173/2010 dated 19.08.2014
which is confirmed by the Judgment and order dated
30.04.2016 passed by the Court of I Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Haveri, in Criminal Appeal No.62/2014.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioner who was tried for the offences
punishable under Section 279, 304A of IPC and Section 3
and 181 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988, was convicted by the
trial Court for the aforesaid offences and was sentenced to
undergo one year simple imprisonment for the offence
punishable under Section 304A of IPC. For the offence
punishable under Section 279 of IPC, the petitioner was
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2312
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
For the offence punishable under Section 3 r/w 181 of
Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioner was sentenced to pay
fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment a period of one month. The said Judgment
and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial
Court was confirmed by the Court of I Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Haveri, in Criminal Appeal No.62/2014
dated 30.04.2016. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
having reiterated the grounds urged in the revision
petition, submits that there is no evidence on record to
establish that the petitioner was riding his motorcycle in a
rash and negligent manner and he had caused the
accident in which deceased Meenakshi had died as a result
of the injuries suffered by her. He submits that the
evidence of PW1 is not corroborated and other eye
witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2312
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the
respondents has argued in support of the impugned
judgment and order and prays to dismiss the petition.
6. The prosecution in order to prove its case had
examined 7 witnesses as PW1 to PW7 and had got marked
9 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On behalf of the
defence, no evidence was led nor any document was got
marked.
7. PW1 is the complainant and Ex.P1 is the
complaint lodged by him. During the course of his
examination-in-chief, he has stated that he had seen the
accident in question from a distance. However, he has not
stated before the Court that the petitioner was riding the
motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and as a result,
the accident in question had taken place. During the
course of his cross examination, he has stated that he has
not seen as to how the petitioner was riding his motorcycle
immediately prior to the accident. During the course of
cross examination, this witness has voluntarily deposed
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2312
that just to help the son of deceased, he had lodged the
complaint.
8. PW3 is another eye witness examined by the
prosecution, this witness has stated that he came to know
about the accident that had occurred near the bus stand
and thereafter, he had gone to the spot of accident, by
that time, 10 to 20 public had already gathered.
Therefore, it cannot be said that this witness was an eye
witness to the accident in question. This witness was
treated as hostile witness and cross examined by the
public prosecutor, but, nothing material has been elicited
from the mouth of this witness against the petitioner.
PW4 is another eye witness who also has turned hostile to
the case of the prosecution. During the course of
examination in-chief, he has stated that he came to the
spot of the accident, after the accident and he does not
know which vehicle had caused the accident and how the
accident had taken place. Even though this witness was
also cross examined by the prosecution, nothing material
has been elicited from his mouth.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2312
9. PW5 is another eye witness, but, also turned
hostile to the case of the prosecution. During the course
of her examination, she has stated that she had not
witnessed the accident in question. This witness also was
treated as hostel witness and cross examined by the public
prosecutor. PW6 is the owner of the motor bike which
was involved in the accident. Even this witness has not
supported the case of the prosecution and he was treated
as hostile witnesses. PW2 is the panch witnesses to the
spot mahazar Ex.P2. PW7 is the investigation officer who
had conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet.
10. From a perusal of the depositions of the
witnesses, it is seen that except PW1, none of the other
independent witnesses have supported the case of the
prosecution. Even PW1 has not stated that he had seen
the petitioner driving the motorcycle in a rash and
negligent manner and as a result, he had caused the
accident in question. In fact, this witness during the
course of cross examination has admitted that
immediately prior to the accident, he had not seen as to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2312
how the petitioner was riding the motorcycle. He has also
admitted that only to help the son of the deceased he had
filed the complaint. For the purpose of attracting the
alleged offences, the prosecution is required to prove that
the accused was guilty of riding the vehicle which had
caused the accident in a rash and negligent manner and as
a result of the same, the accident in question had taken
place. In the present case, the prosecution has utterly
failed to prove the charges made against the petitioner
and therefore, I am of the considered view that the Courts
below were not justified in convicting the petitioner for the
charged offences. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The revision petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned Judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the
Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC-VI,
Hangal, in Criminal Case No.173/2010
dated 19.08.2014 and the Judgment and
order dated 30.04.2016 passed by the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2312
Court of I Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Haveri, in Criminal Appeal
No.62/2014 are set aside.
(iii) Petitioner is acquitted for the charges
leveled against him.
(iv) The bail bonds, if any of the accused stand
cancelled.
(v) The fine amount, if any, deposited by the
petitioner shall be refunded to him.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vmb
