Karnataka High Court
Sri Shekhara Naika vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13545
CRL.RP No. 442 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 442 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHEKHARA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O BIRANNA NAIKA,
R/AT GULIGURI HOUSE,
KARPE VILLAGE,
BANTWAL TALUK,
D.K-574 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PUTTUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE- 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by MAYAGAIAH (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA EARAPPA., HCGP)
VINUTHA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
KARNATAKA ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 28.10.2016 MADE
IN C.C.NO.867/2014 (OLD NO.1551/2011) BY THE COURT OF
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND A.C.J.M., PUTTUR AND THE
ORDER DATED 09.03.2017 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.5026/2016 BY THE
COURT FO THE V ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., D.K., MANGALORE SITTING
AT PUTTUR D.K., AND ACQUIT HIM OF THE OFFENCES WITH WHCIH
HE WAS CONVICTED BY THE COURTS BELOW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13545
CRL.RP No. 442 of 2017
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This revision petition is directed against the judgment
and order passed in Crl.A.No.5026/2016 dated 09.03.2017 by
the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru,
sitting at Puttur, D.K., (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned
Sessions Judge'), whereby the learned Sessions Judge
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in
C.C.No.867/2014 dated 28.10.2016 by the Principal Senior Civil
Judge and ACJM, Puttur (hereinafter referred to as the 'the trial
Court').
2. Abridged facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 24.12.2010 at about 5:45 a.m., the revision
petitioner/accused drove the Maxi Cab/Mini bus bearing
Reg.No.KA-13A-811 on NH-48 from Bengaluru towards
Mangaluru at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner.
When the vehicle reached a place called Paalthaje Bridge,
Koukrady Village, Puttur Taluk, the accused/driver lost his
control over the vehicle and dashed into northern side of the
NC: 2025:KHC:13545
Bridge, as a result, the vehicle fell down to the depth of 25 feet
into water canal. Due to the impact of the accident, the inmates
of the vehicle i.e., Ravi and Gururaj succumbed to the injuries
at the spot and PWs.2, 3, 5 to 10 sustained simple and
grievous injuries. Hence, Puttur Town Traffic Police registered a
case against the revision petitioner/accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC.
After investigation, the said Police laid the charge sheet against
the accused for the aforementioned offences before the trial
Court. The trail Court, after securing the presence of the
accused framed the charges against him for the said offences.
3. To prove the charges leveled against the accused,
the prosecution in total examined 15 witnesses as PW.1 to
PW.15 and marked 27 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P27. However,
the revision petitioner/accused neither examined any witness
nor produced any documents.
4. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence,
the trial Judge convicted the revision petitioner/accused for the
charges leveled against him and thereby sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to
NC: 2025:KHC:13545
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 279 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days; the
accused sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence
punishable under Section 337 of IPC, in default of payment of
fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15
days; further, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC, in default of
payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 3 months and also sentenced him to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of
IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an
appeal before the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K.,
Mangalore, Sitting at Puttur in Crl.A.No.5026/2016.
NC: 2025:KHC:13545
6. The learned Sessions Judge after re-assessing the
entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the
revision petitioner/accused by confirming the judgment passed
by the trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this
Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel Sri Hareesh Bhandary
T., for the revision petitioner and the learned HCGP
Sri Channappa Earappa for the respondent-State.
8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for
the revision petitioner/accused is that both the Courts below
have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a right
perspective and erroneously convicted the revision
petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections
279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. He further contended that,
PWs.1 to 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10-the inmates of the vehicles and the
eyewitnesses to the incident have categorically deposed in their
evidence that the condition of the road at the place of incident
was too worst and repair work was in progress on the said
road. As such, there was no possibility of driving the vehicle in
a rash and negligent manner by the revision
NC: 2025:KHC:13545
petitioner/accused. He further contended that, it is the specific
case of the revision petitioner/accused that due to axle cut in
the vehicle, the driver lost his control and the accident caused.
To substantiate this aspect, on perusal of the evidence of
PW.4-Motor Vehicle Inspector, he has clearly admitted in his
cross-examination that if the front axle of the vehicle breaks
down, the driver of the vehicle will lose his control over the
vehicle and that if the accident is occurred due to dislocation of
the front axle, there lies no fault on the part of the driver of the
said vehicle. Further, PW.4 also admitted that, on examination
of the vehicle, he found that the break system of the vehicle
was not in condition. The learned counsel further contended
that, PW.11 in his evidence admitted that he found rubbing
marks on the road nearly for about 5 meters due to dislocation
of front axle. Lastly he contended that the inmates of the
vehicle/eyewitnesses-PWs.2 to 7, 9 and 10 have specifically
admitted in their cross-examination that they heard the sound
before the accident. Hence, it is specifically proved that, before
the accident the front axle dislocated and the driver lost his
control on the vehicle and the unfortunate incident caused. This
NC: 2025:KHC:13545
aspect of the matter is not appreciated by the Courts below.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition.
9. Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that the
trial Court and the First Appellate Court after meticulously
examining the evidence on record passed well-reasoned
judgments which do not call for any interference at the hands
of this Court. He further contended that the eyewitnesses-
PWs.2 to 10 have supported the case of prosecution and stated
that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner and due to the same, the accident occurred. Further,
Ex.P2-spot mahazar does not indicate any such rubbing marks
on the road at the place of incident to substantiate the defence
of the accused that the accident caused due to dislocation of
the front axle. He also contended that, PW.4-Motor Vehicle
Inspector has stated that, on examination of the vehicle, the
accident was not caused due to the mechanical failure and the
same was caused due to the negligent driving of the driver. In
such circumstance, the prosecution has proved the charges
leveled against the revision petitioner/accused beyond
reasonable doubt and the trial Court and the First Appellate
NC: 2025:KHC:13545
Court rightly convicted the accused for the offences he charged.
Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties so also on perusal of the entire evidence and materials
on record, the sole point that would arise for my consideration
is:
"Whether the First Appellate Court is justified
in dismissing the appeal by confirming the judgment
and order of sentence passed by the trial Court in
C.C.No.867/2014?"
11. I have given my anxious consideration on the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective
parties so also perused the materials and evidence placed
before me. It could be gathered from the evidence and records
that PW.1 has lodged the complaint before the complainant-
Police on 24.12.2010 as per Ex.P1 alleging that himself, duo
deceased and other inmates were traveling in the vehicle-in-
question i.e., Maxi Cab/Mini Bus bearing Registration No.KA-
13A-811 from Bengaluru to Mangaluru. When the vehicle
reached a place called Paalthaje Bridge, due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver i.e., the revision
NC: 2025:KHC:13545
petitioner/accused, the vehicle dashed to the bridge and fell
down into the water canal into the depth of 25 feet. On perusal
of the evidence of PW.1, he reiterated the contents of his
complaint-Ex.P1 and stated that the accident was caused due
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle.
However, on perusal of his cross-examination he admitted that,
at the place of incident the road condition was worst and a
repair was in progress. This evidence of PW.1 also admitted by
all the eyewitnesses i.e., PWs.2 to 10, the inmates of the
vehicle. Further, PW.1 and other eyewitnesses have admitted in
their evidence that they heard the sound before the occurrence
of the accident. In such circumstance, it could gathered that
there is no such possibility of the revision petitioner/accused
driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner when the
road condition was too worst and also repair work was in
progress. It is the specific case of the revision
petitioner/accused that the accident in question was caused
due to the mechanical failure i.e., due to the dislocation of the
front axle.
12. On perusal of the evidence of PW.4, though he has
stated in his chief examination that, on examination of the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:13545
vehicle, he found that the accident was not caused due to the
mechanical failure of the vehicle, however, in his report Ex.P8,
it is stated by him that the front axle of the vehicle was
dislocated. Nevertheless, PW.4 in his cross-examination has
specifically admitted that he was unable to state whether the
front axle of the vehicle was dislocated before or after the
accident. He also admitted in the evidence that, once the front
axle of the vehicle was dislocated, then the driver will lose his
control over the vehicle. It is his specific admission in the cross-
examination that the break system of the vehicle was not in
condition. On collocation of the evidence of PW.4 with the
evidence of PWs.1 to 10 the inmates, as stated by them, they
heard the sound in the vehicle before the accident. It could be
gathered that the said sound must have caused due to
dislocation of the front axle and its contact to the road. It is
pertinent to peruse the evidence of PW.11-spot mahazar
witness who has specifically admitted that, on the spot he had
identified the rubbing marks on the road for about 5 meters. In
such circumstances, the said rubbing marks must have been
caused due to the dislocation of the front axle and its contact to
the road. Such being the position, I am unable to accept the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:13545
contention of learned HCGP that the accident was caused due
to the rash and negligent driving of the revision
petitioner/accused. No doubt, due to the accident, the duo
inmates succumbed to the injuries so also PWs.1 to 10
sustained simple injuries. However, the same itself is not a
ground to determine that the revision petitioner/accused drove
the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. On careful scrutiny
of the entire evidence on record, along with Ex.P8-IME report,
this Court is of the view that the accident in question was
caused due to the dislocation of the front axle and which
resulted in lost of control of the vehicle by the revision
petitioner/driver.
13. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence
that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubts. The golden thread which runs through web of criminal
justice is that, if two views are possible, the view which favours
the accused should be taken into consideration. Hence, I am of
the considered view that the trial Court and the First Appellate
Court erred while appreciating the evidence on record. In that
view of the matter, interference is required in the impugned
judgments passed by the trial Court as well as the First
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:13545
Appellate Court. Accordingly, I answer the point raised above in
the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
ii. The conviction and order of sentence imposed
by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and A.C.J.M,
Puttur in C.C.No.867/2014 dated 28.10.2016,
which was confirmed by the First Appellate
Court i.e., V Addl. District and Session Judge,
D.K. Mangaluru, Sitting at Puttur, D.K., in
Crl.A.No.5026/2016 dated 09.03.2017 is
set-aside.
iii. The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted for
the offences punishable under Sections 279,
337, 338 and 304-A of IPC.
iv. The bail bond executed by the revision
petitioner/accused shall stand cancelled.
v. The fine amount if any paid by the revision
petitioner/accused shall be refunded to him on
due identification.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
