Karnataka High Court
Shivashankara Swamy vs State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6498
CRL.RP No. 927 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 927 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVASHANKARA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O SHIVASWAMY,
BUS DRIVER
R/O B. HATNA VILLAGE,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT
PIN CODE: 571 401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H. JAYANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PERIYAPATNA POLICE,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT BUILDING,
COURT OF BANGALORE-560 001.
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 29.06.2013 PASSED BY
THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., PERIYAPATNA IN
C.C.NO.266/2010 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6498
CRL.RP No. 927 of 2016
SECTIONS 279 AND 304(A) OF IPC AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION CONFIRMED BY ORDER DATED
24.06.2016 PASSED BY THE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE SITTING AT HUNSUR IN
CRL.A.NO.198/2013 AND ALLOW THE CRL.R.P. BY ACQUITTING
THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that on 08.03.2010 at around 2.30 p.m., the accused being the
driver of the KSRTC bus drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner on B.M. Road in front of Government Hospital,
Periyapatna and passenger one K. Shivanna, who is the
NC: 2025:KHC:6498
deceased was about to get down from the bus, he fell on the
ground and sustained fatal injuries. Hence, case has been
registered and police investigated the matter and filed the
charge-sheet.
4. The accused was secured and he claimed trial and
hence, the prosecution examined the witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 12
and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P12(a). The
accused was subjected to 313 statement and he did not choose
to lead any defence evidence.
5. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of
P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, who are the passengers in the very same bus,
accepted their evidence and comes to the conclusion that
accused, who is the driver of the bus ought to have waited till
the deceased get down from the bus and without waiting for
the deceased to get down from the bus, he moved the same.
As a result, accident has occurred and he sustained injury and
convicted him.
6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, an
appeal is preferred before the First Appellate Court in
Crl.A.No.198/2013. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation
NC: 2025:KHC:6498
of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record,
confirmed the order of the Trial Court discussing the material
on record, particularly in paragraph Nos.18, 19 and 20. Being
aggrieved by the concurrent finding and conviction and
sentence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.
7. The main contention of learned counsel for
petitioner is that both the Courts failed to take note of evidence
on record in proper perspective and committed an error
believing the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. The evidence of
P.W.1 is very clear that the deceased Shivanna got into the bus
near Sub-registrar office and conductor told him that no stop
will be given in Kampalapura and conductor also told him to
stop the vehicle, to enable him to get down and when the bus
was slow down, the deceased himself did not wait for stopping
of bus, but suddenly he himself made an attempt to get down
from the bus and accident has occurred on account of
negligence on the part of the deceased himself and the same is
evident from the records. When the bus was slow down, he put
his one leg outside the bus, as a result, he lost control and he
fell down and sustained injuries and these are the materials
which are not taken note by the Trial Court and the First
NC: 2025:KHC:6498
Appellate Court while appreciating the evidence. Hence, it
requires interference of this Court.
8. Per contra, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor for the respondent-State would submit that incident
is dated 08.03.2010 is not in dispute at the time of 2.30 p.m.
and witnesses P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, who are the passengers of the
bus categorically say that when the conductor gave signal to
stop the bus and there is no stop at Kampalapura, since the
said bus is an express bus, the driver though slow down the
vehicle, but he suddenly moved the vehicle and hence, the
accident has occurred. The Trial Court also taken note of
evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and the First Appellate Court also
appreciated the material on record and given the reasoning
that the driver of the bus did not wait till deceased alights from
the bus and before the deceased alighting from the bus, he
started moving the same. As a result, the deceased fell down
and sustained injuries and on account of negligence on the part
of driver only, the accident has occurred and it does not require
any interference.
NC: 2025:KHC:6498
9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
State and also the reasoning given by the Trial Court and
grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State, the
points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether both the Courts committed an
error in convicting and sentencing the
petitioner for the offence punishable under
Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and whether it
requires interference of this Court by
exercising revisional jurisdiction?
(ii) What order?
Point No.(i)
10. Having considered both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record, there is no dispute with regard to
the fact that accident has taken place on 08.03.2010 at around
2.30 p.m. The main contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that when the deceased boarded bus near Sub-
registrar office of Periyapatna, when the conductor enquired his
destination, he replied that he needs to go to Kampalapura and
he immediately asked him to get down and he gave the signal
NC: 2025:KHC:6498
to the driver to stop the bus and when the bus came near
hospital and slow down the bus, the deceased made an attempt
to get down from the bus. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 9 is
also very clear that bus was slow down without signal being
given and not stopped the bus. But, at that juncture, the
deceased made an attempt to get down from the bus and the
very evidence of P.W.2 is very clear that he put his leg on the
ground even though the bus was not stopped and there is a
force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that
the deceased himself ought to have waited till stopping of the
bus. But, when the bus was slow down, at that time, he made
an attempt to get down from the bus and the very evidence of
P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 that when the bus came near Government
Hospital, Periyapatna, it was stopped there and again started
moving. The very evidence of P.W.2 is clear that when signal
was given to stop the bus, driver of the bus slow down and in
order to get down from the bus, deceased laid his one leg on
the down and bus moved. But, the fact is that when bus was
not stopped completely, he made an attempt to get down from
the bus.
NC: 2025:KHC:6498
11. When such material is available on record, the Trial
Court ought to have taken note of said fact into consideration.
Admittedly, there is no bus stop at the spot of accident and the
same is admitted by the witnesses examined by the
prosecution and only on the request, when the deceased
wanted to get down from the bus, even though there was no
stop, he made an attempt to get down from the bus, though
the bus was not stopped. When such material is available on
record, the Trial Court ought to have given benefit of doubt in
favour of the driver, since the driver has slow down the bus
accommodating the deceased, who wrongly boarded the bus
and ought to have taken note of the fact that deceased also
hurriedly made an attempt to get down from the bus, even
though bus was not stopped. It is also important to note that
all the witnesses speak about the rashness and negligence on
the part of the driver and the witnesses categorically admit that
when bus was slow down, it was at the speed of 20 kms. and
driver of the bus slow down the bus only to accommodate the
wrongly boarded passenger to alight from the bus.
12. Hence, the very contention that driver moved the
bus in a rash and negligent manner cannot be accepted and the
NC: 2025:KHC:6498
observation made by the Trial Court that the driver ought to
have waited till deceased gets down from the bus is erroneous
and the deceased himself alighted from the bus in a hurried
manner, even though bus was not stopped. The evidence of
P.W.2 is that he had put his one leg down, even though bus
was not stopped and when such material on record and there is
no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver and made
attempt to slow down the bus, in order to accommodate the
wrongly boarded passenger to get down from the bus, since the
conductor gave the signal. The case of the prosecution is also
that the conductor gave signal to stop the bus and before
stopping the bus, the deceased himself made an attempt to get
down from the bus. These materials ought to have been taken
note by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and both
the Courts lost sight of material on record, particularly evidence
of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, who are also villagers of the deceased and
both the Courts ought to have taken note of the evidence
meticulously, while appreciating their evidence, who are the
villagers of the deceased and the same has not been done.
13. Hence, when there is no legal finding by the Trial
Court and the First Appellate Court and when the order suffers
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6498
from its infirmities, the Court can exercise revisional
jurisdiction. Therefore, it is appropriate to extend the benefit
of doubt in favour of the accused, since he has wrongly
boarded the bus and the conductor also gave signal to driver to
stop the bus and instead of waiting till stopping of bus, the
deceased made an attempt to alight from the bus and
accidentally he fell down and sustained injuries and I do not
find ingredients of Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and there is no
rashness and negligence on the part of the driver. Hence,
there are materials to interfere with the finding of the Trial
Court, when the order suffers from its legality and correctness.
Therefore, I answer point No.(i) as 'affirmative'.
Point No.(ii)
14. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The revision petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order of conviction and
sentence passed by the Trial Court and
confirmed by the First Appellate Court are set
aside and accused is acquitted for the offence
punishable under Section 279 and 304-A IPC.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6498
(iii) If any fine amount is deposited by the
revision petitioner, the same is ordered to be
refunded to him on proper identification.
(iv) The bail bond executed by the revision
petitioner stands cancelled.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
