Karnataka High Court
Raju S/O Beeka Marati vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
CRL.RP No. 100071 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100071 OF 2018
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
RAJU S/O. BEEKA MARATI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: N.P.C. EMIPLOYEE,
R/O: KAIGA TOWN SHIP, MALLAPUR,
TQ: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA,
NOW R/AT: D-46/2, KAPS TOWNSHIP,
POST: ANUMALA,TQ: VYARA,
DIST: TAPI, STATE: GUJARATH-394651.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
signed by BY ITS YELLAPUR POLICE,
SHAKAMBARI NOW REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BENCH
Location: BUILDING,DHARWAD.
High Court of
Karnataka, ...RESPONDENT
Dharwad
Bench (BY SRI. PRAVEEN. K. UPPAR, AGA)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.397 AND
401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 02.03.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT
OF 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR,
SITTING AT: SIRSI IN CR. A. NO.82/2012 AND CONFIRM THE
JUDGEMENT & ORDER DATED 28.02.2012 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, AT: YELLAPUR IN C.C.
NO.211/2011 FOR THE CHARGES U/SEC.279, 304-A OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
CRL.RP No. 100071 of 2018
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE ORDER THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
This Revision Petition is directed against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence in Criminal
Appeal No.82/2012 dated 02.03.2018 by the I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Karwar (sitting at Sirsi),
Itinery Court at Yallapur, as the judgment of acquittal
passed in CC No.211/2011 dated 28.02.2012 by the JMFC,
Yallapur wherein the accused was charge sheeted by the
Yallapur Police for the offences punishable under Sections
279 and 304A of IPC.
2. Parties to this revision petition are referred to
as per their rank before the Trial Court for convenience.
3. According to the case of the prosecution, the
present petitioner-accused was charge-sheeted by the
Police Inspector of Yallapur Police Station for the offences
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC on the
ground, that the accused herein on 05.09.2011 at about
7:00 PM, on National Highway No.63 near Chikamavalli
Cross, being the driver of the car bearing Registration
No.KA-30/M-3528 drove his car in a rash and negligent
manner endangering human life, lost control over the car
and moved to the extreme right side of the road and
dashed to the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-
31/Q-1384 and as a result of which, the rider and pillion
rider fell down. The pillion rider of the said vehicle Smt.
Swetha Sridhar Nayak, sustained grievous injuries and
died in the hospital. With these allegations, a complaint
came to be filed and the crime was registered against the
accused for the aforesaid offences in Crime No.178/2011.
Thus, criminal law was set in motion. The investigation
officer, after conclusion of the investigation, filed the
charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid
offences.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
4. The jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of
the offences, presence of the accused was secured and he
was enlarged on bail.
5. Substance of accusation came to be framed,
read over to the accused in Kannada, in the language
known to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
6. Before the trial Court, to prove the guilt of the
accused, the prosecution, in all examined 8 witnesses as
P.Ws.1 to P.Ws.8 and got marked documents as per
Exs.P.1 to P.10 with respective signatures thereon. On
behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 and D2 came to be marked
during the course of cross-examination. After closure of
the evidence of the prosecution, accused was questioned
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. so as to enable him to
answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the
evidence of the prosecution. He denied his complicity in
the crime and he did not choose to lead any defence
evidence on his behalf.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
7. The learned trial Magistrate after hearing the
arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, found that
the accused is not guilty of the offences and thereby
passed an order of acquittal of the accused for the
offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. Being
aggrieved by same, the State preferred appeal before the
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karwar, sitting at
Sirsi, in Criminal Appeal No.82/2012. The first Appellate
Court, on hearing the arguments and on reassessment of
the evidence found the accused guilty of committing the
offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and
sentenced him as under:-
"Acting U/s 255(1) of Cr.PC., the
accused is convicted for the offence
punishable U/s.279, 304A of IPC.
The accused is sentenced to undergo SI
for period of six months and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable
U/s.304A of IPC., in default, SI for one
month."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
This is how now the accused is before this Court by
filing this revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
The learned counsel for the accused-revision petitioner,
Sri. Ganapathi Bhat submits that, the learned trial Court
has properly appreciated the evidence and found that
there was no rash and negligent driving of the car by its
driver and none of the witnesses have supported the case
of the prosecution and rightly acquitted the accused.
8. He further submits that the first Appellate
Court, without appreciating the evidence in a proper
manner and without applying its mind in proper
perspective, has set aside the impugned judgment and
convicted the accused. In addition to his admissions, he
referred, the grounds urged in the revision petition. He
disputes the findings in the judgment passed by the
learned first Appellate Court, and submits that, it is
required to be set aside and the judgment of acquittal
passed by the trial Court is to be restored. He prays to
allow the revision petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
9. As against this submission, the learned AGA
submits that, as the learned trial Court has committed a
grave error in acquitting the accused, an appeal was
preferred by the State before the District and Sessions
Judge, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi. The learned first Appellate
Court by appreciating the evidence placed on record, and
on re-appreciation of the same had rightly set aside the
impugned judgment and convicted and sentenced the
accused. He submits that, no fault can be found with the
reasoning and findings of the learned first Appellate Court.
He submits that, the eyewitnesses even the injured
complainant has supported the case of prosecution and in
the said accident, the pillion rider has lost her life. He
submits that there are no grounds to interfere into the
judgment of the learned first Appellate Court. Hence, he
prays to dismiss the revision petition.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced by both the side and meticulously
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
perused the papers. The point that would arise for
consideration is as under:
i) Whether the judgment of the learned first
Appellate Court suffers from any illegality
and infirmity and it requires interference
by this Court?
ii) If so, whether the judgment of trial Court
requires to be restored?
11. It is a case of accident. The main allegation of
the prosecution against the accused is that, because of the
rash and negligent driving of the car, on that ill-fated day,
the said accident has taken place. The said car dashed
against the motorbike bearing Registration No.KA-31-
Q/1384 driven by the complainant Sridhar along with his
wife Swetha Nayak as a pillion rider. Because of this
impact, both the rider and pillion rider fell down and
deceased Swetha Nayak sustained injuries on her person
and died in the hospital. Thus, according to the case of the
prosecution, because of the rash and negligent driving of
the car by the accused, the said accident has taken place.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
To that effect, prosecution relies upon the complaint at
Ex.P1. This complaint is filed by the complainant Sridhar
Nayak by stating that, on 05.09.2011, after the school
hours, himself and his wife Swetha Nayak were moving on
their motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-31-Q-1384
towards Yellapur Bazaar from Mavalli. When they reached
Mavalli cross from Yellapur side towards Hubballi, one car
came in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed to the motorbike. Because of this impact, both fell
down and sustained injuries and subsequently, his wife
Swetha Nayak died. To that effect, he lodged a complaint
as per Ex.P1. Ex.P2 is the panchanama of the scene of
offence, wherein where it states, where exactly the said
accident has taken place. Ex.P3 is the sketch and it shows
that, where exactly the said accident has taken place.
Ex.P4 is the inquest panchnama on the dead body of
deceased Swetha. The cause of death of Swetha Naik was
because accidental injuries which is not in dispute. Ex.P5 is
the PM report and this PM report shows the nature of the
injuries sustained in the said accident by the deceased.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
Ex.P6 is the seizure panchnama of the vehicle. Ex.P7 is the
Motor Vehicle Mechanical Examination Report showing the
number of damages sustained to both the vehicles. The
Motor Vehicle Inspector is of the opinion that, the said
accident had taken place not because of any mechanical
defects. This fact is admitted by both the side. Ex.P8 is the
FIR. There are certain portions of the statements of the
witnesses marked at Exs.D1 and D2.
12. So far as oral evidence lead by the prosecution
is concerned, PW1-complainant though reiterates the
contents of the complaint in his chief-examination, he
states that, the said car was coming towards Hubballi from
Yellapura side and he was driving his motorbike, the said
car came and dashed on the right side of his motorbike.
He fell down on the left side of the road so also his wife.
Then the car went ahead and rolled on his wife. For the
first time, without any recital in the complaint, he stated
so in his examination-in-chief. He sustained some
lacerated injuries and his wife sustained injuries on her
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
forehead and blood started oozing. She also sustained
injuries on her legs, left side of the chest etc. But, on
perusal of the PM report, Ex.P5, the doctor has not at all
noticed any such injuries in the manner stated by the
complainant. No such injuries are noticed by the doctor
when he conducted the post mortem except the injuries on
the right medial aspect of eyebrow, abrasion over right
ankle and multiple abrasions over lateral aspect of right
upper limb so also braised abrasion over right upper
abdomen. That means, altogether a different evidence has
been spoken to by this PW.1 with regard to the injuries
suffered by his wife in the said accident. He states that
initially, his wife took first aid treatment at Government
Hospital, Yallapur. Thereafter, she was shifted to KIMS
Hospital, Hubballi, there she died. He lodged a complaint
as per Ex.P1.
13. He has been intensively cross-examined by the
defense. According to him, he obtained the driving licence
in the month of August 2009. The said accident has taken
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
place on 05.09.2011, i.e. within one month of taking his
driving licence. According to him, as it was a Ganesha
Chaturthi, he wanted to go to his brother's house at
Yellapura. Therefore, he was moving along with his wife on
the said motorbike. According to him, when he was about
to pass the National Highway, the motorbike face was
towards the northern side. He further states that when he
entered the Chikamavalli Main Road, his motorbike face
was on the left side. There was no dashing of the
offending car on the left side of his motorbike. There was
no head on collision in between both the vehicles. He
further states that, if one has to go towards Hubbali from
Chikamavalli Cross, the road is towards the right side of
the Chikamavalli cross. He denied a suggestion that he
was moving towards Chikamavalli from Yellapura side
towards Hubbali. He denied a suggestion that the car was
moving behind his motorbike. He denied a suggestion
that because of falling of his wife on the ground, she
sustained the rib fracture etc.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
14. On scrupulous reading of the evidence of this
PW1, he has completely changed the contents of the
complaint as well as the scene of offence. Where exactly
the said accident has taken place has not been properly
stated by this PW1. When such an evidence is placed on
record by the prosecution through this PW1, it requires
corroboration.
15. PW2-Deepak Narayan Borekar is stated to be
an eyewitness to the said accident. According to him,
when the said accident took place, he was moving towards
Ganapati temple from Hittinabail. At that time, the
complainant and his wife were traveling on the other
motorbike from Chikamavalli cross. At that time, the car
came in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed to the motorbike. Because of this accident, both
the rider and pillion rider fell down. He has been cross-
examined at length by the defence. On scrupulous reading
of the cross-examination, it shows that when the said
accident took place, he was moving towards the Ganapathi
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
temple. The said Ganapathi temple is by the side of
Chikamavalli cross towards Yellapur side. That means, the
said temple is about one and half kilometers away from
Chikamavalli. According to him, he was coming towards
Chikamavalli cross, at that time, he was about 15 to 20
feet away from the motorbike from the said National
Highway. He further states that, the place of accident is
abutting the highway. Further he states that the said
motorbike fell at a distance of 4 to 5 feet from the
Chikkamvalli cross. Further he states that, he noticed
falling of both complainant and his wife. There was a
damage caused to the headlight of the motorbike. But,
PW1 never says about sustaining of damage to his vehicle.
According to him, to the front portion of the motorbike,
the car dashed. This evidence is quiet against the contents
of the motor vehicles report prepared by the Motor Vehicle
Inspector. If this evidence is scrupulously perused, it can
be stated that, he is not an eye witness to the said
accident, but, simply has spoken about the accident,
stating that he has seen this accident. But, his evidence
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
does not inspire confidence that he has really witnessed
the said accident in the manner stated by him.
16. PW3 Mahabaleshwar J. Borekar is another
witness who states that at about 7:00 PM, on that day, he
came towards Chikamavalli cross along with his cattle. At
that time, he noticed that PW1 was coming from
Chikamavalli cross. At that time, a car bearing Registration
No.K-30-M-3528 came from Yellapura towards Hubli and
dashed to the motorbike. Both PW1 and his wife fell down
and his wife sustained grievous injuries on her person.
But, in the cross-examination, he says that after the
accident only, he saw by side of the accident. That means,
he has not really witnessed the accident when it occurred
and only on hearing the noise of the accident, he came to
know about the said accident. Therefore, much value
cannot be attached to the evidence of this PW3 that he is
an eye witness to the said accident.
17. PW4 - Dr. Deepak Bhat is a doctor who has
conducted the post mortem of the deceased. He noticed
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
the injuries. Whatever the injuries so stated by PW1 is
quite against the contents of the injuries stated by this
PW4 mentioned in the postmortem of the deceased. It is
not denied by the defence, but, how the said accident has
taken place and the nature of the injuries so spoken to by
PW4 is not at all corroborative with that of the evidence of
PW1 in material particulars. Therefore, to the extent of
conducting the postmortem on the person of the
deceased, his evidence is to be accepted.
18. PW5 Mahesh Shivanand Nayak is a pancha to
Ex.P6. His presence at the time of conducting the said
panchnama is not denied by the defence in material
particulars. To the extent of his presence with regard to
the preparation of the panchanama at Ex.P6, his evidence
is to be accepted.
19. PW6- Vijay Kumar D.H. the Motor Vehicle
Inspector has conducted the mechanical examination of
the offending vehicle and issued the report as per Ex.P.7.
As discussed above, he has noticed the damages sustained
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
by both the vehicles and according to him, there is no
mechanical defects in the said vehicles. To the extent of
the contents of the IMV report, his evidence is to be
accepted.
20. PW.7-S.V.Nagvekar is Police Sub Inspector,
who registered the crime and set the criminal law in
motion and conducted the spot panchanama, recorded the
statement of the witness etc. To the extent of conducting
the investigation, his evidence is to be accepted.
21. In all criminal cases, panchas are the authors of
the punchnama and investigation officers are the
Supervisors of investigation. In the absence of acceptable
evidence from the prosecution, the evidence of the police
officers becomes formal in nature.
22. PW.8 G.I. Nayak, the Police Inspector who has
filed the charge sheet against the accused after completion
of the investigation. This fact is not denied by the defence.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
23. On overall reading of the entire evidence placed
on record by the prosecution, as rightly observed by the
learned trial Court, the prosecution has failed to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. But, the
first Appellate Court has re-appreciated the evidence and
has come to the conclusion that rash and negligent driving
of the car is proved by the prosecution. The evidence of
the complainant cannot be accepted so also the eye
witnesses. The place of accident so shown is a mystery in
this case. Where exactly, the said accident has taken place
is not proved in accordance with law. In a case of present
nature, when rash and negligent driving of the vehicle is
attributed against the accused persons, it is the bounden
duty of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of Section
279 of IPC in material particulars. As per this Section, the
prosecution is under obligation to prove that, when a
person drives any vehicle or rides the vehicle, such driving
or riding on any public way and such driving must be rash
and negligent so as to endanger human life or to be likely
to cause hurt or injury to any other person. Though the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
prosecution is able to prove that accused is the driver of
this offending car, so also he was driving the car towards
Hubbali side on that day, but the ingredients that he was
really driving the vehicle endangering the human life is not
proved in accordance with law. Specific evidence is
required to be adduced by the prosecution to prove the
rash and negligent driving of the offending car on the part
of the accused. In this case, including the complainant,
none of the witnesses of the prosecution have stated
anything with regard to the rash and negligent driving on
the part of the accused at the time of accident. Even
similarly, none of the prosecution witnesses stated
anything specific with regard to the speed of the car driven
by the accused and dashing the said motorbike. Rightly,
the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused. In a
case of present nature, the rash and negligent driving
must be the proximate cause. It may not be always
possible to determine with reference to the speed of a
vehicle whether a person was driving rashly and
negligently. Even when one is driving a vehicle in a slow
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
speed, but, recklessly and negligently, it would amount to
rash and negligent driving, but in this case, it is not so.
Element of speed is not a criteria for rash driving, it cannot
be automatically imagined that the offending vehicle was
rash but it should also necessarily be coupled with high
speed, but, none of the ingredients are proved in this
case. The accused being the driver of the car when he was
driving the car towards Hubballi from Yellapur side, the
straight road is there and what made the said driver to
come towards the right side towards the Chikamavalli
Cross is not properly explained by any of the witnesses in
their examination-in-chief by the prosecution. Therefore,
the first Appellate Court has committed illegality in
appreciating the evidence placed on record. The accused
has been charged by the police for the offences under
Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, but, the ingredients of the
rash and negligent driving is not proved and there is no
evidence about the rash and negligent driving of car. The
very scene of offence so mentioned by the complainant is
not properly proved and stated either in the panchanama
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
or in the sketch. So, in view of all these factual features,
as rightly submitted the counsel for the revision petitioner-
accused, the first Appellate Court has committed illegality
in appreciating the evidence and coming to a conclusion
that accused is guilty of said offences under Section 279
and 304A of IPC. Therefore, the judgment of the first
Appellate Court requires interference and consequentially,
the judgment passed by the trial Court in CC No.211/2011
dated 28.02.2012 is required to be restored by setting
aside the judgment in Crl.A.No.82/2012. Accordingly,
Point No.1 is answered in favour of accused and against
prosecution.
24. Resultantly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The revision petition is allowed.
ii) The judgement of conviction passed in Crl.A
No.82/2012 dated 02.03.2018 by the I
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Karwar (sitting at Sirsi), Itinery at Yallapur,
is hereby set aside and consequently,
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2045
judgement of acquittal passed in CC
No.211/2011 dated 28.2.2012 by the JMFC,
Yallapur is restored.
iii) Consequentially, the petitioner-accused is
acquitted of the charges under Sections 279
and 304(A) of the IPC.
iv) His bail bonds stand cancelled.
v) He is set at liberty.
vi) Send back the trial Court records along with
a copy of this judgment forthwith.
vii) Send the operative portion of the judgment
to the trial Court and learned First Appellate
Court for compliance through mail.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
VMB/CT-VG
