Karnataka High Court

Sri.Ramanjaneyalu vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2025

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                               -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC:8181
                                                      CRL.RP No. 216 of 2021




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                             BEFORE

                               THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                           CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.216 OF 2021

                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI. RAMANJANEYALU
                   AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
                   S/O MALLANNA
                   R/AT BANIPALLI VILLAGE
                   RAYADURGA TALUK
                   ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT
                   ANDHRAPRADESH STATE-515 001

                   PRESENTLY RESIDING AT REDDY COMPLEX
                   HEBBAL LAYOUT, MYSURU-570 016.
                                                                ...PETITIONER

                               (BY SRI LOKESH D.K., ADVOCATE FOR
                                   SRI P NATARAJU, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF           BY H.D.KOTE POLICE STATION
KARNATAKA          MYSURU DISTRICT
                   REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                   HIGH COURT BUILDING
                   BENGALURU-560 001.
                                                               ...RESPONDENT

                               (BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP)

                        THIS CRL.RP FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
                   CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
                   PASSED BY THE LEARNED VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
                   SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU, SITTING AT HUNSUR IN
                                  -2-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:8181
                                            CRL.RP No. 216 of 2021




CRL.A.NO.24/2015 DATED 31.12.2020 AND THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
AT H.D.KOTE IN C.C.NO.225/2009 DATED 02.02.2015 AND
ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

     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 the learned counsel appearing for the respective

parties.

2. This petition is filed against the order of conviction

and sentence dated 02.02.2015 passed in C.C. No.225/2009 for

the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 134A, 134B

and 304A of IPC and also against the concurrent finding passed

by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.24/2015 dated

31.12.2020 wherein confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court

except modifying the sentence from two years to one year with

fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section

304A of IPC.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

that this petitioner on 18.12.2008 at about 7.15 p.m., within

the jurisdiction of H.D.Kote police at Kolagala gate, when the

NC: 2025:KHC:8181

complainant and her husband, after completion of agricultural

work, were standing on the left side pavement in order to cross

the road and this petitioner drove the Scorpio bearing Reg.

No.KA05-MF-5859 in a rash and negligent manner an dashed

against the husband of the complainant, as a result, he fell

down and sustained severe bleeding injuries and the petitioner

who was driving the offending vehicle flee away from the spot

without providing any medical aid to the injured and

immediately, the injured was shifted to the H.D.Kote hospital

and after first aid, he was shifted to the K.R. Hospital at Mysuru

for better treatment and he succumbed to the injuries.

4. Based on the complaint, the police have registered

the case and investigated the matter and after completion of

investigation, filed the charge-sheet against this petitioner and

this petitioner was secured and he did not plead guilty and

hence, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses as PW1 and

PW13 and also got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P16.

The petitioner was subjected to 313 statement and he has not

led any defence evidence.

NC: 2025:KHC:8181

5. The Trial Court having considered both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record particularly considering

the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and also considering the factual

aspects of application of principles of res-ipsoloquitor which

clearly depicts that the things itself speaks about the accident

and he went and dashed against the person who was standing

on the pavement and considering the rashness and negligence

on the part of the petitioner and on failure to exercise duty with

recoverable proper care and precaution guarding against the

injuries to the publics and did not give any treatment to the

victim and he escaped from the spot and also considering the

age of the deceased at the time of the accident as 42 years old,

convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence

punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and other

offences.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed

before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.24/2015 and the

First Appellate Court also having considered the material on

record, assessed the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are eye

witnesses to the incident. P.W.2 is the eye witness-cum-

mahazar witness to the spot mahazar and also considering the

NC: 2025:KHC:8181

cumulative effect of entire material available on record,

particularly taking note of Ex.P16-sketch which depicts the

place of accident and rashness on the part of the petitioner and

even tyre marks clearly disclose the negligence on the part of

the petitioner. However, the First Appellate Court considering

the material on record, confirmed the Judgment of the First

Appellate Court reducing the sentence from two years to one

year. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding that this

petitioner had caused the accident, the present revision petition

is filed before this Court.

7. The main contention of learned counsel for the

petitioner before this Court is that both the Trial Court as well

as the First Appellate Court failed to consider the material on

record, though the prosecution failed to prove that the accident

has occurred due to rash and negligent act of the petitioner and

committed an error in convicting the petitioner and First

Appellate Court also committed an error in confirming the same

and there is no legal evidence and the order impugned is not

sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference.

NC: 2025:KHC:8181

8. Per contra, learned Additional SPP for the

respondent-State would submit that P.W.1 is none other than

wife of the deceased and she was along with the deceased and

after finishing their agricultural work, both of them were

crossing the road, in order to go to their house. She brought to

notice of this Court Ex.P16-sketch which clearly depicts the

manner in which the petitioner drove the vehicle in rash and

negligent manner and caused the accident. P.W.2 is also an eye

witness and spot mahazar witness and nothing is elicited from

the mouth of P.W.2, who is also an independent witness.

Though other eye witnesses have turned hostile, but the

evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is consistent and the First Appellate

Court rightly convicted the petitioner and exercised the

discretion by modifying the judgment of the Trial Court

reducing the sentence from two years to one year and it does

not require any interference.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State and also

considering the grounds urged in the petition as well as the

material on record, the points that would arise for consideration

of this Court are:

NC: 2025:KHC:8181

(i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner and whether the First Appellate Court committed an error in confirming the same and it requires interference of this Court by exercising revisional jurisdiction?

(ii) What order?

Point No.(i)

10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State, admittedly,

P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and her evidence is clear that

both of them after finishing their agricultural work, in order to

go to their house, standing in pavement and driver of the

offending vehicle came in rash and negligent manner and

dashed against her husband. Immediately, he fell down and he

sustained injuries around the body and driver of the vehicle did

not stop the vehicle at the spot and went away from the place

of the accident and immediately, people who were there at the

spot shifted him to Government Hospital and then shifted to

K.R. Hospital, Mysore. In the cross-examination, it is elicited

that distance between agricultural land and main road is about

NC: 2025:KHC:8181

3 Kms. and vehicle came from H.D. Kote towards Mysore and

categorically says that her husband, who was standing in the

pavement was about to cross the road and no doubt, answer is

elicited that more number of vehicles passes through in the

said road, it is suggested that he did not see the accused on

that day and the same was denied.

11. The other witness is P.W.2, who is a mahazar

witness as well an eye witness. He also categorically deposes

that driver of the offending vehicle came from H.D. Kote, in

order to go to Mysore and caused the accident, as a result, he

fell down and sustained injuries and thereafter, he flew away

from the place and when 407 vehicle came in the said road,

immediately, injured was shifted to the hospital and he also

identifies the signature in the mahazar and Ex.P3. In the

cross-examination, he admits that for the first time, he says

that he had informed the police and also categorically says that

he witnessed the incident of accident at 10 metres distance and

was standing, in order to cross the road in the pavement and

both the husband and wife were standing at the distance of 10

feet and also admits that there was darkness at the time of the

accident.

NC: 2025:KHC:8181

12. Having considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, no

doubt, other witnesses are mahazar witnesses, P.Ws.7, 8 and 9

are eye witnesses, and they have not supported the case of the

prosecution and they were cross-examined and nothing is

elicited. Having reassessed the material on record, no doubt,

scope of revision is very limited and this Court need not go into

the evidence, the Court has to examine whether there is

perversity in the finding of the Trial Court and the First

Appellate Court and to that extent, Court has to look into the

material on record. Having perused the material on record,

particularly the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, though P.W.1 is the

wife of the deceased and P.W.2 is an independent witness and

also considering the fact that Ex.P16- sketch is not disputed, it

is clear that deceased was standing in the footpath which is

having 5 feet and sketch Ex.P16 clearly disclose tyre mark and

road is 18 feet width and tyre mark is also found to the extent

of 90 feet distance from the place of accident and nothing is

found in the explanation of the accused in 313 statement, when

he was examined. Hence, I do not find any error committed by

the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in appreciating the

evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly P.Ws.1 and 2

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8181

and the document of Ex.P16. The photos which are marked as

Exs.P4 to P6 shows damages caused to the vehicle as well as

IMV report i.e., Ex.P13 discloses slight dent on the bonnet.

13. Having reassessed both oral and documentary

evidence placed on record, this Court does not find any

perverse finding and the order of the Trial Court and the First

Appellate Court not suffers from its legality and correctness.

Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of

the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, regarding causing

of accident and recklessness on the part of the petitioner, it is a

clear case of res ipsa loquitur and things itself speak the

manner in which the accident has occurred and there was

recklessness and negligence on the part of the petitioner.

14. However, taking note of the material on record, the

Trial Court invoked offence punishable under Section 279 and

337 IPC and when the ingredients of Section 279 IPC merges

with the severe offence of Section 304-A IPC, the Trial Court

ought not to have invoked Section 279 IPC and though Section

337 IPC is invoked, the same is erroneous and no injured is

examined before the Trial Court and it is not the case of the

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8181

prosecution that any of the injured had sustained injuries.

Hence, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court lost

sight of the same and it requires interference only in respect of

invoking Sections 279 and 337 IPC and the same requires to be

set aside.

15. In respect of Section 134(a) and 134(b) read with

Section 187 of IMV Act is concerned, specific evidence of the

witness is that though the driver of the vehicle slow down the

vehicle, he did not stop the vehicle and did not provide medical

aid to the injured and considering the offence under Section

304-A IPC and also manner in which accident has occurred and

the document of Ex.P16 is very clear that due to rashness and

negligence on the part of the petitioner, accident has occurred

and he could not control the vehicle, in view of rashness and

negligence driving of the vehicle and there was 90 feet tyre

mark found as disclosed in the sketch at Ex.P16. When such

being the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with

regard to the sentence is also concerned and the First Appellate

Court modified the sentence from two years to one year.

Hence, I answer point No.(i) as partly affirmative with regard to

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8181

the offence under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and rest of the

offences is concerned, the same is confirmed.

Point No.(ii)

16. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned order passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 337 IPC is hereby set aside.

(iii) If any fine amount is deposited by the revision petitioner, the same is ordered to be refunded in favour of the petitioner on proper identification.