Karnataka High Court
Rajesh @ Nagaraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8468
CRL.RP No. 545 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 545 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
RAJESH @ NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
S/O B.G. RUDRAPPA,
R/AT CHERANAHALLI POST AND VILLAGE,
CHICKMAGALURU - 577 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED AKHIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
D.K.MANGALURU - 575 001.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
NARAYANA
UMA
Location:
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
HIGH COURT TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29.09.2016
OF
KARNATAKA PASSED IN C.C.NO.391/2014 (OLD C.C.NO.786/2012) PASSED
BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, PUTTUR
AND ORDER DATED 24.03.2017 IN CRL.A.NO.5022/2016
PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE SITTING AT PUTTUR D.K., AND
ACQUIT THE PETITIONER IN THE SAID OFFENCE.
THIS 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:8468
CRL.RP No. 545 of 2017
ORAL ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner,
being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on
sentence dated 29.09.2016 in C.C.No.391/2014 (Old C.C
No.786/2012) on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and
A.C.J.M at Puttur and its confirmation judgment and order
dated 24.03.2017 in Crl.A.No.5022/2016 on the file of V
Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru,
Sitting at Puttur, D.K., seeking to set aside the concurrent
findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the
petitioner / accused is convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal
Code (for short 'IPC').
2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth
as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience.
Brief facts of the case:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 30.12.2011 at
4.30 a.m., the accused being the driver of the Sugama
Travels bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-C-1066, drove
NC: 2025:KHC:8468
the said bus on NH-75 which was going towards
Mangaluru from Bengaluru in a rash and negligent
manner with high speed, has lost his control and took the
bus to his extreme left side. As a result of which, the bus
fell down to its left side of the road. Consequently, PWs.1
to 6 being inmates of the bus have sustained injuries.
One of the inmates of the bus died in the said accident.
Therefore, a case came to be registered against the
accused. The jurisdictional police after registering the
case conducted the investigation and submitted the
charge sheet.
4. Heard Sri. Mohammed Akhil, learned counsel for
petitioner and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that though the accident occurred in the
Shiradi Ghat road, the prosecution has failed to establish
the rash and negligent act of the driver, however, the
Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner
found guilty of the offences stated supra, which is
NC: 2025:KHC:8468
unsustainable for the reason that the evidence of P.W.11
would indicate that the driver of the vehicle around 4.30
a.m., in the morning was trying to accommodate the
opposite vehicle, which was coming from the side of
Mangaluru and took the vehicle to his left side,
consequently, it fell down towards Ghat.
6. It is further submitted that as the road was under
construction, going in the said road with high speed in a
rash and negligent manner cannot be expected and the
same is liable to be set aside. The evidence of all the
witnesses would also indicate that the vehicle was not
going in high speed. Such being the fact, the Courts
below have erroneously concluded that the vehicle was
being driven in a rash and negligent manner and
recorded the conviction, which is unsustainable.
Therefore, it is necessary to set aside the conviction
passed by the Courts below. Making such submissions,
the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the
petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:8468
7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader
for the respondent - State vehemently opposed the said
submissions and he further submitted that the evidence
of PWs.1, 4, 5 and 6 are relevant and they are consistent
in their evidence that the bus was being driven in a rash
and negligent manner in the Shiradi Ghat, as a result of
which, the driver had lost his control, consequently, he
fell down into the Ghat.
8. It is further submitted that the evidence of injured
witnesses is relevant and also appropriate for the
consideration. Even though there were no other
witnesses cited in the charge sheet, the evidence of the
inmates of the bus assumes greater significance and they
are the best person who speak about the conditions of
the bus. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below in
recording the conviction is appropriate and proper. There
is no interference with the said findings. Making such
submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader
for the respondent - State prays to dismiss the petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:8468
9. Having considered the said submissions and also perused
the averments of the Courts below in rendering the
conviction, no doubt, the witnesses, namely, PWs.1 to 6
are the inmates of the bus and also eyewitnesses to the
incident. The bus was going from Bengaluru to
Dharmasthala. When the bus reached Shiradi Ghat road
at about 4.30 a.m., the petitioner herein being the driver
of the bus took the bus to the extreme left, as a result of
which, the bus was turtled and fell down to the left side
of the road. As a result of which, the inmates of bus
have sustained grievous injuries and the son of C.W.6
died in the said accident.
10. Now, it is relevant to refer the independent witness,
namely, P.W.11 - Charan.K who is the IMV Inspector, has
stated that on 31.12.2011 on the information received
from Puttur Traffic Police Station, he went to Nelyadi
station and inspected the bus. He submitted the report
as per Ex.P12. According to him, the accident occurred
not due to mechanical defects. In the cross-examination,
he admitted that there was 1½ feet gap between the tar
road and the adjacent mud road. As the petitioner had
NC: 2025:KHC:8468
moved the bus to the left side of the road in order to give
access to the opposite vehicle, the bus was toppled. He
also further admitted that the accident occurred due to
the worst condition of the road. Such being the fact,
driving the vehicle by the petitioner in a rash and
negligent manner cannot be accepted. However, the
Courts below have arrived at a conclusion that the bus
was being driven in a rash and negligent manner cannot
be accepted and the conviction is required to be set
aside.
11. 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 on
sentence dated 29.09.2016 passed in
C.C.No.391/2014 (Old C.C No.786/2012) by the
Principal Senior Civil Judge and A.C.J.M at Puttur
and the judgment and order dated 24.03.2017
passed in Crl.A.No.5022/2016 by the V
Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K.,
Mangaluru, Sitting at Puttur, D.K., are set aside.
NC: 2025:KHC:8468
(iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A
of IPC.
(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
UN
