Karnataka High Court
Mr Prabhakar Chandra Naik vs State Through By Padubidri P.S on 19 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7415
CRL.RP No. 1522 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1522 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
MR PRABHAKAR CHANDRA NAIK
S/O CHANDRA BASAVA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT KAGAL POST
GUDEKAGAL MUKKAM, KUMTA TALUK
KARWAR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE THROUGH PADUBIDRI P.S
UDUPI, REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-01
Digitally ...RESPONDENT
signed by
NARAYANA (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
UMA
Location:
HIGH THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
COURT OF TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2016 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA
PRL. S.J., UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI IN CRL.A.NO.49/2012 AND
THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 17.04.2012 PASSED BY
THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI IN C.C.NO.2334/
2010 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER UNDER
SECTIONS 279, 337, 338 AND 304-A OF IPC.
THIS REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7415
CRL.RP No. 1522 of 2016
ORAL ORDER
1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner being
aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below
wherein the Courts below have concurrently held that the
petitioner has been found guilty of the offences under
Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code
(for short 'IPC').
2. The parties would be referred as per their rankings before
the Trial Court for convenience.
Brief facts of the case:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 29.03.2010 at
about 09.30 a.m., the accused being a driver of the
KSRTC bus bearing Reg. No.KA-19-F-2476 was driving
the said vehicle on the national highway in a rash and
negligent manner so as to endanger human life and
dashed against Maruti-800 car bearing registration
No.KA-03-P-2030, as a result of which, CWs.1 and 3 have
sustained simple injuries and the other three inmates of
the said car have sustained grievous injuries. Among
those, two inmates who sustained grievous injuries died.
NC: 2025:KHC:7415
Therefore, a complaint came to be registered by the
complainant against the petitioner herein.
4. Based on the complaint of the complainant, the
jurisdictional police have registered a case against the
petitioner in Crime No.60/2010. After conducting the
investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the
petitioner herein.
5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the
prosecution examined 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and got
marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17. The Trial Court
after having considered the evidence of all the witnesses,
both oral and documentary, recorded the conviction and
the same has been affirmed by the Appellate Court.
6. Heard Shri Parameshwara N. Hegde, learned counsel for
petitioner and Shri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the concurrent findings of the Courts below
are perverse and erroneous for the reason that it is
opposed to the evidence on record. Therefore, the same
is liable to be set aside.
NC: 2025:KHC:7415
8. It is further submitted that though the prosecution has
examined several witnesses, none of the witnesses have
deposed regarding rash and negligent driving of the
vehicle by its driver. In fact, the inmates including the
driver of the car had been to watch Kambala programme
and throughout the night, they were awakened and in the
morning they were coming towards Udupi in the said car.
Though the accident had occurred on account of the
negligence of the driver of the Maruti-800 vehicle, in
order to avail the benefit of compensation, the petitioner
has been implicated falsely.
9. It is further submitted that even the documentary
evidence, especially the sketch, would indicate that the
accident had occurred not on account of the negligence of
the petitioner, however, the sketch has not been read
properly.
10. It is further submitted that the Courts have to take into
account the concept of culpable rashness and culpable
negligence in cases of road accidents. The negligence in
case of an accident can be gathered from the attendant
NC: 2025:KHC:7415
circumstances. The Trial Court has not dealt with in that
context.
11. It is further submitted that the Courts have to see the
primary cause for the said accident. The mere fact of
occurrence of an accident does not necessarily imply that
it must be owed to someone's negligence. He further
submitted that, the Courts below have committed an
error in appreciating the evidence and law properly, as a
result of which, the impugned judgments are passed.
However, the findings are patently erroneous and
unacceptable. Hence, the convictions rendered by the
Courts below are required to be set aside. Making such
submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to
allow the petition.
12. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
vehemently justified the concurrent findings and he
further submitted that the evidence of the inmates of the
Maruti-800 vehicle assumes greater significance as they
are the injured witnesses. The accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent act of the petitioner. The said
accident not only caused injuries to some of the inmates,
NC: 2025:KHC:7415
but also was the reason for the death of the other two
inmates of the car.
13. It is further submitted that the sketch which is marked as
Ex.P11 clearly demonstrated the rash and negligent act of
the petitioner. As per the sketch, the vehicle was
supposed to be on the left side of the road as it was
coming from Udupi to Mangaluru, however, it says
otherwise. Similarly, the Maruti-800 car was to be on the
left side of the road as it was coming from Mangaluru to
Udupi. As the accident was on head-on-collision, the
theory of res-ipsa-loquitor would be applicable.
14. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who were the inmates of
Maruti-800 car, would clearly demonstrate the culpable
rashness and culpable negligence. In other words, the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the case on hand.
He further submitted that the findings of the Courts below
in recording the conviction and its confirmation are proper
and relevant. Interference with the said findings would
not appropriate. Hence, the petition deserves to be
dismissed. Making such submissions, learned High Court
Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:7415
15. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below,
it is relevant to take note of certain aspects before
adverting to the facts. It is an undisputed fact that the
Courts below have recorded the conviction for the
offences under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC.
16. The primary conditions for applicability of Section 279 of
IPC are that, it is the manner in which the vehicle is
driven, it must be driven either rashly or negligently and
such rash and negligent driving should be such as to
endanger human life. If these conditions are satisfied,
the penalty contemplated under the said section follows.
The word "rash and negligent driving" has to be
determined in the light of the facts and circumstances of
the given case. These two words are incapable of being
seen in isolation. The person who drives the vehicle on
the road is not only liable to be held responsible for the
act, but, also liable for the result.
17. The principle of doctrine of res ipsa loquitur serves two
purposes, one, that an accident may by its nature be
more consistent with its being caused by the negligence
NC: 2025:KHC:7415
for which the opposite party is responsible than by any
other cause. In such a case, the mere fact of the
accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence.
Secondly, it is to avoid hardship in cases where the
claimant is able to prove the accident, but cannot prove
how the accident occurred.
18. Having considered the principle stated supra, it is
necessary to refer the evidence of all the witnesses to
ascertain as to whether or not the findings are justifiable.
PW.1 being the complainant has deposed in his evidence
that he was one of the inmates of the car. The car was
being driven by Shridhara Nayak. He is stated to be the
back seater of the car. He further stated that the KSRTC
bus which was coming from Udupi towards Mangaluru
was coming at high speed and hit the car on its right side,
as a result, he sustained injuries. When the particular
question was put to him that the sketch would indicate
that it was a head-on collision, he admitted the same.
Even though he stated in the cross-examination that the
bus was overtaking the lorry at the time of the said
NC: 2025:KHC:7415
accident, however, he did not state the same in his
statement made before the police.
19. Similarly, PWs.2 and 3 - other inmates of the car, have
deposed that the bus which was being driven by the
accused came on the wrong side and caused the accident.
However, these three witnesses being the inmates of the
car never deposed about the culpable negligence.
20. PW.4 is said to be an inmate of the KSRTC bus.
According to her, due to the rash and negligence of the
KSRTC Bus by its driver, the accident had occurred.
However, the prosecution has not produced any
documents to show that she was traveling in the said bus.
21. PW.5 stated to be the witness to spot mahazar. He has
turned hostile.
22. On careful reading of the evidence of material witnesses,
none of the witnesses have deposed that the KSRTC bus
was driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent
manner. However, all the witnesses have deposed that it
was being driven in a high speed. The said fact may not
be the reason for recording the conviction as it is contrary
to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7415
case of State Of Karnataka v. Satish1, in paragraph
Nos.4 and 5, which read as under:
"4. Merely because the truck was being
driven at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either
"negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the
witnesses examined by the prosecution could give
any indication, even approximately, as to what they
meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative
term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record
material to establish as to what it meant by "high
speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In a criminal trial, the burden of providing
everything essential to the establishment of the
charge against an accused always rests on the
prosecution and there is a presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused until the
contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be
presumed, subject of course to some statutory
exceptions. There is no such statutory exception
pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any
material on the record, no presumption of
"rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by
invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur". There is
evidence to show that immediately before the truck
turned turtle, there was a big jerk. It is not
explained as to whether the jerk was because of
1998 (8) SCC 493
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7415
the uneven road or mechanical failure. The Motor
Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle had
submitted his report. That report is not forthcoming
from the record and the Inspector was not
examined for reasons best known to the
prosecution. This is a serious infirmity and lacuna in
the prosecution case.
5. There being no evidence on the record to
establish "negligence" or "rashness" in driving the
truck on the part of the respondent, it cannot be
said that the view taken by the High Court in
acquitting the respondent is a perverse view. To us
it appears that the view of the High Court, in the
facts and circumstances of this case, is a
reasonably possible view. We, therefore, do not
find any reason to interfere with the order of
acquittal. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The
respondent is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand
discharged."
On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, it makes it clear that mere driving the vehicle in
high speed is not sufficient to hold that the accused is
found guilty of the rash and negligent act.
23. In the light of the observations made above, I am of the
considered opinion that the concurrent findings recorded
by the Courts below in rendering the conviction of the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7415
accused are unsustainable. Therefore, I proceed to pass
the following:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 17.04.2012 passed in C.C.No.
2334/2010 by the II Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC, Udupi and judgment and order dated
26.09.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.49/2012 by the
Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi, are set aside.
(iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences under
Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC.
(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
Bss
