Karnataka High Court
Sri. D Raghavendra vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1311
CRL.RP No. 898 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.898 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. D RAGHAVENDRA
S/O DEVENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KALAMARAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHALLAKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHALLAKERE
POLICE STATION,
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY
by SANDHYA S
Location: High
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Court of
Karnataka
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.R. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SPECIAL
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHITRADURGA IN CRL. APPEAL NO.46 OF 2015 DATED
27.06.2017 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHALLAKERE IN
C.C.NO.164/2012 DATED 08.07.2015 AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER FROM THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1311
CRL.RP No. 898 of 2017
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The revision petitioner/accused has preferred this Revision
Petition against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 08th July, 2015 passed in CC No.164 of 2012 by
the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere (for brevity,
hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court"), which is confirmed
by the Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Chitradurga (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the
"Appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2015 dated 27th
June, 2017.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal
are referred to as per their status and rank before the trial
Court.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 22nd
December, 2011 at about 6.30 pm, near field of Kakka
Rangajja Thippeswamy of Adavichikkenahalli within the
jurisdiction of Challakere Police Station, the driver of RTS bus
bearing registration No.KA-16-9696 drove the same in a rash
and high speed and while so proceeding, all of a sudden,
NC: 2024:KHC:1311
applied the brake. As a result, the inmate of the bus Jayanna
S/o Erappa who was standing near the door, fell down from the
bus and sustained grievous head injuries. Immediately, he was
shifted to Challakere Government Hospital and thereafter to
Government Hospital, Chitradurga; later, to SS Hospital at
Davanagere. But the injured, not responding to the treatment,
died on 31st December, 2011 at 3.30 pm. It is stated in the
complaint that after the accident, the accused fled from the
spot without taking reasonable steps of securing medical
assistance to the injured or taking him to the nearest hospital.
Thus, the accused has committed the offence punishable under
Sections 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section
187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. After filing the charge
sheet, the trial Court has taken cognizance and registered a
case in CC No.164 of 2012, summons was issued. In response
to summons, accused appeared before the trial Court and
enlarged on bail. The substance of accusation under Section
251 of Code of Criminal Procedure was read over and explained
to the accused. The accused having understood the same,
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
NC: 2024:KHC:1311
4. To prove the guilt of the accused, eleven witnesses
were examined as PWs1 to 11 and marked twelve documents
as Exhibits P1 to P12. After closure of the prosecution side
evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code
of Criminal Procedure was recorded and the accused has totally
denied the evidence of prosecution evidence. But the accused
has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
5. Upon hearing the arguments on both sides, the trial
Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code read with Section
187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and sentenced the accused to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to
pay a fine of Rs.700/- for the offence punishable under Section
279 of Indian Penal Code and further sentenced the accused to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to
pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to pay the fine to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of sixty days for the offence
punishable under Section 304A Indian Penal Code and further
accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default to
pay the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of five days for commission of offence punishable under
NC: 2024:KHC:1311
Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Being aggrieved by
the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the
accused preferred appeal before the Special II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Criminal Appeal
No.46 of 2015. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 27th
June, 2017. Being aggrieved by judgment of conviction of both
the courts blow, the accused is before this Court in this
Revision Petition.
6. Sri B.M. Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner, submits that the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed
by the Appellate Court are illegal, erroneous and unsustainable.
Both the courts below have grossly erred in believing the
version of PW1, though he has clearly stated in his cross-
examination that he does not know how the accident took place
as he was inside the bus. The evidence of PW1 that driver of
the bus drove the bus with a high speed and made the bus
jump, due to which Jayanna fell from the bus and sustained
grievous head injuries. Nowhere it is stated in his evidence as
to the speed of the bus or why the bus jumped. In the absence
of any reason for jumping of bus, believing the evidence of
NC: 2024:KHC:1311
PW1 is nothing but unnatural. Both the courts below did not
consider the fact that, the distance of the village from the place
where the incident took place, is less than two kilometers and
as such, the bus cannot go in a high speed in village limits.
This fact is admitted by PW1. Absolutely, there is no evidence
to prove as to the rash and negligence on the part of the
accused. However, the trial Court has convicted the accused
which is confirmed by the Appellate Court, which is not
sustainable. On these grounds, the learned counsel sought to
allow the revision petition.
7. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government
Pleader Sri M.R. Patil, submits that the trial Court has properly
appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and
facts, the Appellate Court has also confirmed the same. There
are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the court below. On these
grounds, sought to dismiss the Revision Petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, the following points arise for my consideration:
NC: 2024:KHC:1311
1. Whether the revision petitioner has made a
ground that the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by the trial Court which is
confirmed by the Appellate Court are illegal,
perverse and not sustainable under law?
2. What order?
9. My answer for the above points are as under:
Point No.1: in the affirmative;
Point No.2: as per final order
Regarding Point No.1:
10. I have carefully examined the material placed before
this Court. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22nd
December, 2011 at about 6.30 pm, near field of Kakka
Rangajja Thippeswamy of Adavichikkenahalli, the driver of RTS
bus drove the same in a rash and high speed and while so
proceeding, applied the brake all of a sudden resulting in the
inmate of the bus Jayanna fall from the bus and sustaining
grievous head injuries. Later, he was shifted to Government
Hospitals at Challakere and the Government Hospital,
NC: 2024:KHC:1311
Chitradurga; thereafter, to SS Hospital at Davanagere. But the
injured, breathed his last on 31st December, 2011 at 3.30 pm,
without responding to the treatment. To prove the guilt of the
accused, CW1-complainant Jayanna examined as PW1, has
deposed in his evidence that about an year back, at about 6.00
pm, he along with the deceased Jayanna was proceeding in RTS
Manjunatha bus from Challakere to Yalagatte Gollarahatti and
when the bus was at a distance of one kilometer to his native,
the driver of the bus drove the same in a high speed and at
that time the door the bus was not locked and when the bus so
proceeding in a high speed, the driver made the bus to jump,
resultantly, the inmate of the bus, Jayanna, fell from the bus
and the driver of the bus proceeded two kilometers ahead.
Further he has deposed that after the incident, he along with
two other inmates, came back and found that Jayanna had
sustained grievous injuries on his head and blood was oozing
from his nose and ear. Immediately, they called ambulance,
but it was infield that ambulance may reach a little late and
hence they shifted the injured Jayanna on motorcycle to the
Government Hospital, Challakere. There the Doctors informed
to shift him to Chitradurga for higher treatment. Accordingly,
NC: 2024:KHC:1311
they shifted him to Chitradurga Government Hospital and later
to SS Hospital, Davanagere for better treatment. After ten
days, in the course of treatment, the said Jayanna passed
away. It is stated that one Raghavendra was the driver of the
bus. After filing complaint, police visited the spot and
conducted panchanama as per Exhibit P2. PW2-Ravikumar, the
son of the deceased, has deposed as to the accident of his
father who died in the hospital and the police have received the
complaint on 01st January, 2012 as per Exhibit P3 in which it is
submitted that due to the fault of the accused-bus driver, the
accident occurred. PW3-Badari and PW4-Thippeswamy have
deposed regarding the mahazar Exhibit P2. PW5-Raghavendra
has deposed as to the mahazar conducted by the police as per
Exhibit P4. PW6-Kyathanna has deposed in his evidence that
on 22nd December, 2011 at about 6.30 pm, he was proceeding
in Manjunatha Bus from Challakere and the driver of the bus
drove the same in speed and all of a sudden applied the brake,
as a result, Jayanna fell from the bus and lost his conscious.
Then, he and PW1-Jayanna shifted him to the hospital. He has
identified the accused who was the driver of the bus. Since the
driver of the bus had applied the brake suddenly, Jayanna fell.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1311
PW7-Manjanna, Head Constable, has deposed as to registering
the case against the accused. PW8-O Thippamma, ASI has
deposed as to the insertion of offence under Section 304A of
Indian Penal Code after the death of the deceased in the
hospital. PW9-Mohammed Alisab, retired Assistant Sub-
Inspector, has deposed as to the inquest mahazar conducted
by him as per Exhibit P5. PW10-Chandrashekar and PW11-T
Manjuanth have deposed as to their respective investigation.
11. A careful scrutiny of the material, makes it clear that
on the basis of the complaint filed by Jayanna PW1, the
Challakere Police have registered a case in Crime No.351 of
2011 against the driver of Manjunatha bus (name not known)
bearing Registration No.KA-16-9696 for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 279 and 337 Indian Penal Code and
187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and submitted the First
Information Report to the court. Thereafter, police have visited
the spot and conducted spot mahazar as per Exhibit P2 and
that on 27th December, 2011, the Investigating Officer has
seized the bus involved in the accident under seizure mahazar
Exhibit P4. After the death of the deceased, the Investigating
Officer conducted inquest panchanama and obtained motor
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1311
vehicle inspection report and recorded the statement of eye-
witnesses and thereafter submitted the charge-sheet against
the accused for alleged commission of offence punishable under
Sections 279, 304A of Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is not in dispute that soon after
receiving the complaint from PW1, the Challakere police have
registered a case against the accused driver of the bus bearing
Registration No.KA-16-9696. The name of the accused was not
known at the time of submitting the First Information Report to
the court. It is the case of the prosecution that after the
accident, accused has not intimated the same to the concerned
police and he has not taken any steps to shift the injured to the
hospital for medical assistance as required under Section
134(a) and 134(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Accordingly, the accused has committed offence punishable
under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. PW9 and
PW11 who are the Investigating Officer who have deposed as
to their respective investigation, have not whispered anything
as to on what basis the Investigating Officer collected the name
of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.KA-16-9696.
The Investigating Officer has not issued notice under Section
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1311
133 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to ascertain the name of the
accused and particulars of driving licence at the relevant point
of time. The Investigating Officer has not whispered anything
as to non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 133 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Though PW1-Jayanna was not aware
of the name of the accused at the time of filing the complaint,
he has deposed in his evidence that the accused was the driver
of the bus. He has not whispered anything as to on which date
he came to know about the name of the accused. The
prosecution has not explained anything in this regard. Another
eye-witness Kyathanna, has not been shown in the complaint,
however, during the course of investigation, the Investigating
Officer has recorded the statement of Kyathanna on 24th
December, 2011. It is only on that date he came to know
about the name of the driver as D. Raghavendra. If really,
PW6-Kyathanna had witnessed the accident, the PW1 would
have disclosed his name in the complaint-Exhibit P1 itself.
Even the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer on
24th December, 2011 has not been submitted to the Court at
the earliest point of time. Only at the time of filing the charge
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1311
sheet, PW6-Kyathanna was shown as eye-witness. Therefore,
the evidence of PW6-Kyathanna cannot be believed.
12. Apart from this, this Court has carefully examined the
contents of the complaint and evidence of PW1 and PW6. In
Exhibit P1, it is clearly stated that the driver of the bus applied
sudden brake. Therefore, the Jayanna who was on the foot-
board, fell down. The contents of Exhibit P1 and the evidence
of PWs1 and 6 do not disclose as to whether the door of the
bus was locked or not. For the first time, at the time of
evidence only, PW1 has stated that the door of the bus was not
locked. Both the witnesses have not whispered anything as to
why the driver of the bus has applied the sudden brake. None
of the witnesses have stated anything as to the reason for
applying brake all of a sudden by the driver of the bus at the
relevant point of time. None of the witnesses have deposed as
to the exact speed of the bus. During the course of cross-
examination of PW6, he has clearly stated that the bus was
proceeding from Challakere to Yallagatte Gollarahatti through
Dodderi, Reddyhalli, Bhopanahalli and Adavichikkenahalli.
Further, he has clearly admitted that the bus had stopped at all
the stops viz. Dodderi, Reddyhalli, Bhopanahalli and
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1311
Adavichikkenahalli. He has further admitted that the bus was
going in a slow manner. This evidence of PW6 would falsify the
evidence of PW1. Apart from this, PW1 and PW6 have not
deposed anything as to rash and negligent act on the part of
the accused. Viewed from any angle, there is absolutely no
cogent, corroborative, clinching and trustworthy evidence to
prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under
Sections 279, 304A of Indian Penal Code. Both the courts have
failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with
law and facts.
13. With regard to offence punishable under Section 187 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is concerned, as already discussed
above, the Investigating Officer has not complied with the
mandatory provisions of Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. Apart from this, the owner of the bus was also not
examined by the prosecution to prove that on the relevant
date, one D. Raghavendra was the driver of the bus. Since, the
prosecution has failed to prove that Raghavendra was driver of
the bus on the relevant date, the question of convicting the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 187 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 does not arise. Accordingly, revision
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1311
petitioner has made out a ground that the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court
which is confirmed by the Appellate Court is illegal, perverse
and not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in
the affirmative.
Regarding Point No.2:
14. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
1. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed;
2. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
08th July, 2015 passed in CC No.164 of 2012 by the
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere, which is
confirmed by the Special Second Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (for brevity, in
Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2015 dated 27th June,
2017, are hereby set aside.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1311
3. The accused in acquitted for the offence punishable
under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code
and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988;
4. Send the trial Court records along with the copy of
the order to the trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LNN
