Karnataka High Court
Sri B K Rajesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8573
CRL.RP No. 834 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. 834 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI B K RAJESH
AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNAPPA POOJARY
R/O BADAKODI MANE,
KEPU VILLAGE AND POST,
BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JEEVAN K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
TRAFFIC CIRCLE, KADRI HILLS,
MANGALURU - 575 004.
Digitally REPRESENTED BY THE S.P.P
signed by HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
NARAYANA
UMA BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location:
HIGH COURT ...RESPONDENT
OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND S.J.,
D.K., MANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.195/2012 DATED 01.06.2016 AND
ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 05.07.2012 IN
C.C.NO.2258/2008 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C. (III COURT)
MANGALORE D.K., AND TO DIRECT THE ACUQITTAL OF THE
ACCUSED/PETITIONER.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8573
CRL.RP No. 834 of 2017
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 24.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CAV ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner,
being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 05.07.2012 in C.C No.2258/2008 on
the file of the J.M.F.C. (III Court), Mangalore, D.K., and
its confirmation judgment and order dated 01.06.2016 in
Crl.A No.195/2012 on the file of the III Additional District
and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore, wherein the Courts
below have concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty
of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and
304(A) of the 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 10.03.2008
around 1.30 p.m., the accused being the driver of the bus
bearing registration No.KA-19-C-4209 has driven the
same on the main road near City Bus Stop situated at
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:8573
CRL.RP No. 834 of 2017
State Bank in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
the pedestrians namely CW.1, Savitha and Vikas who
were waiting for the bus. Thereafter, he dashed against a
parked Ambassador Car bearing registration No.KA-19-
9295 and also dashed an electric pole and stopped, as a
result of which, Savitha succumbed to the injuries at the
spot and Vikas expired in the hospital, however, C.W.1
sustained simple injuries.
4. On the basis of the complaint of C.W.1, the jurisdictional
police have registered a case. After conducting the
investigation, submitted the charge sheet.
5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution
examined, in all, thirteen witnesses namely PWs.1 to 13
and got marked 30 documents as per Exhibits P1 to P30.
The Trial Court relied on the evidence of P.W.8, who is
the owner of the bus and P.W.9 - Conductor of the bus
and also the evidence of P.W.1 recorded the conviction.
Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by
the petitioner herein. The Appellate Court dismissed the
appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:8573
CRL.RP No. 834 of 2017
6. Heard Sri Jeevan K., learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner
that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order
passed by the Appellate Court are required to be set aside
as the concurrent findings are perverse, illegal and also
against the evidence on record.
8. It is further submitted that, out of 8 witnesses, PWs.1 to
5 have narrated the incident, however, P.W.2 and 3 are
interested witnesses. Though they have identified the
petitioner as the driver of the bus, the fact remains that
the cleaner of the bus was driving the bus and caused
damage and injuries to the respective parties and
vehicles. When the said fact was suggested to P.Ws.2
and 3, they did not controvert the same.
9. It is further submitted that none of the witnesses have
supported the case of the prosecution that the petitioner
was the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, in the absence
of identity of the driver of the bus, the findings recorded
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:8573
CRL.RP No. 834 of 2017
by the Courts below that the petitioner was the driver of
the said vehicle is against to the evidence on record and
therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained. Making
such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
to allow the revision petition.
10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for
the respondent - State vehemently justified the
concurrent findings and submitted that the findings of the
Courts below are appropriate and he submitted that
P.W.1 being the injured has supported the case of the
prosecution and identified the accused who was driving
the said vehicle as on the date of the accident. The
mahazar would indicate that the petitioner has caused not
only damage to the public property as well as car, but
also killed two persons. Therefore, the conviction
rendered by the Trial Court has to be confirmed and
interference with the findings of the Courts below may
not be proper. Making such submissions, learned High
Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the revision
petition.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:8573
CRL.RP No. 834 of 2017
11. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the learned
counsels for the respective parties and also perused the
findings of the Courts below, it appears that on
10.03.2008, P.W.1 was standing near the State Bank City
Bus Stop to go to his friend's house. When he was
waiting for the bus, the bus bearing registration No.KA-
19-C-4209 came in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed the persons who were waiting for the bus along
with him and caused injuries and thereafter, it caused
damage to the car and also an electric pole. Thereafter,
it stopped there. The name of the driver of the bus
known to him after having heard the name by the third
party. However, he has not seen the driver personally.
12. P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased Savitha who died in
the said accident. She did not say that she had seen the
driver of the bus as on the date of accident. However,
she deposed that the person who was standing in the
Court was driving the said bus as on the date of the
accident. Such identity cannot be sustained. Therefore,
her evidence in respect of identity of the driver cannot be
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:8573
CRL.RP No. 834 of 2017
accepted. The Courts below have failed to appreciate in
this manner.
13. P.W.3 being the owner of the Ambassador Car bearing
registration No.KA-19-9295, has deposed that the person
who was standing in the Court Hall was driving the said
vehicle as on the date of the accident. However, he did
not see the accident personally and also he was not there
at the spot. Such being the fact, identifying the accused
for the first time in the Court cannot be accepted that he
was the driver of the said vehicle.
14. PW.4 was working as an Agent of the bus. He deposed in
his evidence that he did not see who was driving the bus
as on the date of the accident.
15. Similarly, PW.5 has also not supported the case of the
prosecution.
16. PW.6 was working as a Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector.
He stated to have inspected the vehicle and submitted his
report as per Ex.P20. According to him, the vehicle was
in good condition and it had no mechanical defects.
17. PW.8 was the owner of the bus. He has deposed that he
was not aware about the accident. Further, he states
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:8573
CRL.RP No. 834 of 2017
that the accused was not appointed as driver of his bus.
The Investigating Officer has not collected any documents
to show that the accused was working as a driver of the
bus. The prosecution treated him as a hostile witness
and suggested to him that, as per Ex.P23, the accused
was driving the said vehicle as on the date of the alleged
incident. However, he denied the said suggestion and he
further stated that it was not written by him and the
contents of Ex.P23 were not read over to him.
18. On careful reading of the evidence of all these witnesses,
it appears from the record that P.W.1 being the injured
was not aware about the driver or he has not seen the
accused at the spot. P.W.2 was also standing on the
same footpath, waiting for the bus and she had lost her
younger sister in the said accident, however, she did not
notice the accused at the spot. Though they are the
eyewitnesses to the incident, all the witnesses have not
seen the accused at the spot, however, they have seen
the accused in the Court Hall for the first time.
19. P.W.8 being the owner of the bus has not stated anything
about the accused and the Investigating Officer has not
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:8573
CRL.RP No. 834 of 2017
collected any documents to show that the accused was
working as driver of the bus. Such being the fact, the
Trial Court and the Appellate Court should have assessed
the evidence properly and arrived at a conclusion that all
the witnesses have supported the case in respect of
identity of the accused. In the absence of the identity of
the accused, rendering the conviction, in my considered
view, appear to be erroneous and not proper. Therefore,
interference with the said findings is justified.
20. 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 05.07.2012 in C.C
No.2258/2008 on the file of the J.M.F.C. (III
Court), Mangalore, D.K., and its confirmation
judgment and order dated 01.06.2016 in Crl.A
No.195/2012 on the file of the III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore,
are set aside.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8573
(iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences
under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of Indian
Penal Code.
(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
BSS
