Karnataka High Court

Kumar J K vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2025

                                                -1-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC:8115
                                                        CRL.RP No. 653 of 2017




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                          DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
                                             BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
                       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 653 OF 2017
                   BETWEEN:

                       KUMAR J K S/O. KARIYAYYA,
                       AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
                       OCC: DRIVER, R/O. BANDHI HALLI HOUSE,
                       JAMMANA HALLAI POST,
                       SAKALESHPURLA TALUK, HASSAN.
                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SMT. POOJA KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR
                       SRI. R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                       THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                       BY BANTWALA TOWN POLICE STATION,
                       CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       BANTWALA CIRCLE,
                       D.K. DISTRICT 574211.
                       (REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUATOR,
                       HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU 560001)
                                                                   ...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by NARAYANA        (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
UMA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                 THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED U/S.397 AND 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
KARNATAKA          SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
                   SENTENCE DATED 03.10.2015 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL
                   JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BANTWAL, D.K. IN C.C.NO.1075/2012 AND THE
                   JUDGMENT & ORDER DATED 27.04.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
                   SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.238/2015
                   (CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 279, 304A OF IPC AND
                   SEC.134(a)(b) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT) AND ACQUIT THE
                   PETITIONER OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM.

                        THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
                   AND RESERVED ON 20.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
                   OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               -2-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:8115
                                      CRL.RP No. 653 of 2017




CORAM:   HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

                         CAV ORDER

  1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner being

    aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of

    sentence dated 03.10.2015 in C.C. No.1075/2012 passed

    by the Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Bantwala, D.K.,

    and its confirmation judgment dated 27.04.2017 in Crl.A.

    No.238/2015 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge,

    D.K.,   Mangalore,   by   which   both   the   Courts   have

    concurrently held that the petitioner herein is guilty for

    the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of

    Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 134(a)(b)

    of Motor Vehicles Act.


  2. The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court will be

    considered henceforth for convenience.

    Brief facts of the case:


  3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 31.07.2012 at

    about 10.30 p.m., the accused being the driver of the

    lorry bearing its No.KA-19-AE-9951 had driven the said

    lorry in a high speed on the National Highway and dashed
                               -3-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:8115
                                        CRL.RP No. 653 of 2017




   the Toyota Fortuner car bearing its No.KA-19-MC-4500,

   consequently, one of the inmates of the car died. A case

   came to be registered against the lorry driver in Crime

   No.142/2012.       After    conducting    the    investigation,

   submitted the charges sheet for the offences stated

   supra.


4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution

   examined 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked 18

   documents as Exs.P1 to P18.       The Trial Court recorded

   the conviction against the accused and passed the order

   of sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused

   approached the Appellate Court wherein the Appellate

   Court dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition.


5. Heard    Smt.   Pooja   Kattimani,     learned   counsel    for

   Sri.R.B.Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioner and

   Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government

   Pleader for the respondent - State.


6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner /

   accused that the impugned judgments of the Courts

   below are illegal, arbitrary and capricious and the same
                                -4-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC:8115
                                         CRL.RP No. 653 of 2017




   are opposed to the evidence on record.           Therefore, the

   same are liable to be set aside.


7. It is further submitted that even though the manner in

   which the accident had occurred has not been proved, the

   Courts below have acted upon the evidence of the

   interested witnesses namely P.Ws.1 to 3 and rendered

   the conviction which needs to be re-looked.


8. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 does not corroborate with the

   evidence    of      other    prosecution    witnesses.       The

   documentary      evidence    namely    Exs.P7    and    P8   are

   contrary to the evidence of other witnesses. In fact, the

   accident occurred on account of the fault committed by

   the driver of the Fortuner vehicle.


9. It is further submitted that the lorry was fully loaded with

   gas and it cannot be driven either at high speed or in a

   rash and negligent manner in the curve road. Moreover,

   the   prosecution    has    not   proved   the   case   beyond

   reasonable doubt in respect of rash and negligent act of

   the petitioner/accused. However, the Courts below have

   concurrently held that the petitioner was responsible for
                            -5-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC:8115
                                    CRL.RP No. 653 of 2017




  the death of the deceased, which is not tenable and the

  same is liable to be set aside. Making such submission,

  learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the

  petition.


10.     Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

  vehemently justified the judgments of the Courts below

  and he stated that all the witnesses are consistent in their

  evidence that the lorry was being driven by the accused

  in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the

  accident had occurred, consequently, one of the inmates

  of the car died in the said accident.       Therefore, the

  findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction

  are appropriate and proper and interference with the said

  findings would not arise.       Making such submission,

  learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss

  the petition.


11.     Having heard the learned counsel for the respective

  parties and perused the findings of the Courts below in

  rendering the conviction, it is appropriate to have a

  cursory look upon the evidence.
                             -6-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC:8115
                                   CRL.RP No. 653 of 2017




12.    P.W.1 is the resident of Bondala, Hosamane village,

  Shamburu, Panemangaluru, and he knew the deceased.

  He deposed in his evidence that he was going on the road

  in his Scorpio vehicle.   The lorry of which the accused

  was driving had overtaken his vehicle and passed little

  ahead and dashed the vehicle which was coming to its

  opposite    directions. According to him, the accident

  occurred due to overtaking in a negligent manner.

  Though he deposed in his evidence that by that time he

  reached the spot, the accused was not there, identifying

  the accused in the Court for the first time is not proper

  and the Courts below ought not to have acted upon such

  evidence.

13.    P.W.2 has deposed that on 31.07.2012, in the

  night, he was going on the motorcycle as a pillion rider.

  According to him, both were going to Kalladka.    Around

  10.30 p.m., a lorry which was going towards Kalladka

  stated to have dashed the Fortuner vehicle which was

  coming from Kalladka towards B.C. Road. He has said in

  his evidence that he knew the injured.   He further said

  that, he got the injured admitted to the hospital for
                              -7-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:8115
                                        CRL.RP No. 653 of 2017




  treatment. However, he did not depose about the

  presence of the accused at the spot. According to him,

  the accused was not present at the spot when he reached

  the spot.


14.    Similarly, P.W.3 also deposed the same verbatim of

  P.W.2 and he further deposed that he also did not notice

  the accused at the spot.


15.    On conjoint    reading      of   evidence of all   these

  witnesses, it appears that though these witnesses have

  spoken about the rash and negligent act of the driver of

  the said lorry, they are all consistent that the accident

  had occurred and one of the inmates of the Fortuner Car

  died at the spot. However, none of these witnesses have

  spoken about the presence of the accused at the spot.

  When the prosecution has failed to prove that the

  accused was the person who was driving the lorry as on

  the date of the accident, the Courts ought not to have

  concluded that the accused was driving the said vehicle

  as on the date of said incident. It is needless to say that

  the person who had obtained power-of-attorney to get
                                -8-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:8115
                                       CRL.RP No. 653 of 2017




  the lorry released from the custody of the police had

  stated in his evidence that he was not aware as to who

  was driving the said lorry at the time of accident. Such

  being the fact, the findings of the Courts below in

  recording the conviction cannot be sustained.


16.       In the light of the observations made above, I

  proceed to pass the following:-

                           ORDER

(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 03.10.2015 in C.C.

No.1075/2012 passed by the Additional Civil

Judge & J.M.F.C., Bantwala, D.K., and its

confirmation judgment dated 27.04.2017 in Crl.A

No.238/2015 passed by the Principal Sessions

Judge, D.K., Mangalore, are set aside.

(iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences under

Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code

and Section 134(a)(b) of Motor Vehicles Act.

NC: 2025:KHC:8115