Karnataka High Court
Srikantha vs State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4729
CRL.RP No. 1119 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1119 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRIKANTHA,
S/O SHIVAPPA G.A.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT NO. MALLIKATTE VILLAGE,
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA-577422,
KARNATAKA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. TRIVIKRAM S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THIRTHAHALLI POLICE STATION,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M THIRTHAHALLI,
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY SPP,
COURT OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KARNATAKA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE DATED 09.10.2020 IN C.C.NO.230/2018
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
THIRTHAHALLI AND ORDER DATED 21.09.2021 PASSED IN
CRL.A.NO.104/2020 PASSED BY III ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279 AND 304A OF IPC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4729
CRL.RP No. 1119 of 2021
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent State.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that on 08.01.2018 at 8.30 p.m., the accused being the driver
of the auto-rickshaw drove the auto-rickshaw in a rash and
negligent manner in the road leading from Anandapura to
Thirthahalli in front of Swapna Tailors and dashed against the
victim Sri K.Krishnegowda, who was a pedestrian walking on
the left side of the road. As a result, he succumbed to the
injuries even though he was shifted to the hospital. The case
was registered and investigated the matter and filed the
charge sheet. The accused was secured and he did not plead
guilty and hence the prosecution witnesses were examined as
P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to
15. The accused did not lead any defence evidence, however
he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The Trial
NC: 2025:KHC:4729
Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, particularly the evidence of P.W.2 and
P.W.3, who are the eyewitnesses and also considering the
documents of spot mahazar Ex.P.5 and rough sketch Ex.P.11,
comes to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the
negligence on the part of the driver of the auto-rickshaw.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is
filed before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court on
re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed
on record comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not
committed any error and particularly, the evidence of P.W.2
and P.W.3, who are the eye-witnesses to the accident have
deposed witnessing the accident and confirmed the judgment
of the Trial Court.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
sentence and confirmation, the present revision petition is
filed before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that there are contradictions in the
evidence of P.W.1. Though he claims that he witnessed the
NC: 2025:KHC:4729
accident, but in the cross-examination he categorically admits
that he came to know about the accident through P.W.2 and
P.W.3 and thereafter he went to the spot. The learned
counsel contend that the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is not
credible and they made the statement that they were
proceeding in front of the house of the complainant and the
accident was occurred. But, in the cross-examination both of
them say that they were standing near Swapna Tailors and
witnessed the accident that this petitioner drove the vehicle in
a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the victim
and their evidence is contrary to each other. Inspite of
contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, the Trial
Court committed an error in accepting the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader would submit that P.W.1 to P.W.3 are the eye-
witnesses to the accident. P.W.1 is the son of the victim, but
the evidence of the independent witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 is
very clear that they have witnessed the accident and also
given deposition with regard to the distance and location of
the place of the accident and their evidence is credible.
NC: 2025:KHC:4729
Ex.P.11 sketch discloses that the auto-rickshaw came on the
left side of the road and dashed against the victim who was
proceeding ahead of the auto-rickshaw and nothing is elicited
from the mouth of P.W.2 and P.W.3 to disbelieve the same
though some minor contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1
and hence it does not require interference of this Court.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to
the notice of this Court the discussion made by the Trial Court
in paragraph No.33 that there are inconsistencies in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the same is not
fatal to the case of the prosecution. The inconsistencies in
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses takes away the
case of the prosecution and the witnesses were able to say
the distance between the place from which they witnessed
the accident and the manner in which the accident was taken
place and also given the topography of the place of the
accident and mainly relies upon the contradictions in the
evidence of P.W.1.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned High Court Government Pleader and looking
into the evidence available on record, no doubt in the
NC: 2025:KHC:4729
complaint Ex.P.1, P.W.1 says that he witnessed the accident,
but in the cross-examination he admits that he came to know
about the accident through P.W.2 and P.W.3 and then he
went to the spot. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be
believed that he witnessed the accident. Having taken note
of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, both of them have stated
that they were standing near the Swapna Tailors and
witnessed the accident and at the time of the accident the
victim was proceeding on the left side of the road and the
auto-rickshaw came from behind and dashed against him. As
a result, he fell down and sustained injuries and he was
shifted to the hospital. The learned counsel for the petitioner
made an attempt to bring it to the Court notice the answers
elicited from the mouth of P.W.2 and P.W.3. Having perused
the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, in the chief evidence as well
as in the cross-examination, the evidence of both the
witnesses corroborates with each other. P.W.2 categorically
says that the accused came from behind and dashed against
the victim and he himself and C.W.3 were standing near the
shop and shifted the injured to the hospital. In the cross-
examination, he admits that C.W.3 is residing next to his
NC: 2025:KHC:4729
shop and in the cross-examination he categorically says that
he himself and P.W.3 were talking together near the shop i.e.
at Swapna Textiles and immediately rushed to the spot.
Except this answer nothing is elicited from the mouth of
P.W.2.
9. P.W.3 categorically says that he himself and P.W.2
were standing near Swapna Textiles and the deceased was on
the left side of the road and the auto-rickshaw came from
behind and dashed against him, as a result he sustained
injuries on his head and leg and immediately he took the
injured to the hospital. In the cross-examination, he admits
that the accident place is a busy place. He admits that his
house is located in front of Grama Panchayat where buses are
also parked and there are houses besides the said road. In
the cross-examination, he says that at the time of accident he
himself and C.W.2 were talking together near Swapna
Textiles and nothing contrary is elicited from the mouth of
P.W.3.
10. Having considered the evidence of P.W.2 and
P.W.3, who are the eye-witnesses and apart from that, in the
313 statement of the accused, he says that the deceased
NC: 2025:KHC:4729
Krishnaiahgowda was proceeding with the influence of alcohol
and accident was not caused by him, but not led any defence
evidence before the Court though he makes such statement
in 313 statement. Having considered the rough sketch
Ex.P.11 of the spot and also the photographs which clearly
discloses that the auto-rickshaw was on the left side of the
road, the fact that the victim was proceeding on the left side
of the road is not in dispute. With regard to the defence of
the accused that the victim was proceeding with the influence
of alcohol is concerned, nothing is placed on record and the
statement made in 313 by the accused remains as defence
only. Having considered the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3,
though there are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 that
he went to the spot and came to know about the accident
through P.W.2 and P.W.3, the fact that P.W.2 and P.W.3 were
at the spot of the accident is proved. When such material is
available on record, I do not find any error committed by the
Trial Court and the Appellate Court in view of the eye-
witnesses evidence and hence it does not require any
interference of this Court by exercising the revisional
jurisdiction.
NC: 2025:KHC:4729
11. Insofar as sentence is concerned, minimum
sentence of six months imprisonment is ordered and the
same commensurate with the charges leveled against the
petitioner, since the victim lost his life on account of
negligence on the part of the petitioner. Hence, it does not
require interference of this Court.
12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
