Karnataka High Court
D Thajmal vs State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8463
CRL.RP No. 15 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. 15 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
D THAJMAL
S/O DASTHAGIR KHAN
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RESIDENT OF M K KOPPALU
BELUR TOWN, HASSAN - 573 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHETHAN B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
HASSAN TRAFFIC POLICE
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
Digitally
signed by
NARAYANA ...RESPONDENT
UMA
(BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.12.2016 PASSED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN
CRL.A.NO.168/2015 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.10.2015
PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HASSAN
IN C.C.NO.1323/2014 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8463
CRL.RP No. 15 of 2017
ORAL ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner,
being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 08.10.2015 in C.C.No.1323/2014 on
the file of III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan and
its confirmation judgment and order dated 01.12.2016 in
Crl.A.No.168/2015 on the file of III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Hassan 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, 304-A
of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') r/w Sections 134-B,
187, 184, 196 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'M.V. Act').
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 01.09.2011 at
about 07.15 p.m., when the deceased Sumaya Taj and
C.W.7 were walking on Belur-Hassan Road in the left side
and reached Shankar Saw Mill, the petitioner being the
driver of the Maruthi Omni bearing No.KA-04-5570 drove
NC: 2025:KHC:8463
the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed the pedestrian, as a result of which, Sumaya Taj
died in the said accident and CWs.6 and 7 have sustained
grievous injuries. A complaint came to be registered
against the driver of the said vehicle. The jurisdictional
police have registered a case against him and filed a
charge sheet after investigation.
4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution
examined 16 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 16 and got
marked 16 documents as Exhibits P1 to P16. Both the
Courts have concurrently have held that the accused
found guilty of the offences stated supra. Therefore, the
petitioner is before this Court.
5. Heard Sri.Chetan.B, 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 the
petitioner that though the prosecution examined several
witnesses to the case, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 are
relevant since they are the eyewitnesses to the incident.
According to them, the accident had occurred due to
NC: 2025:KHC:8463
negligent act of the pedestrians. However, the Courts
below have relied on the evidence of PWs.13 and 14 who
are said to be the injured witnesses to the incident, which
is incorrect and not proper. Therefore, the same is liable
to be set aside. Making such submissions, the learned
counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader
for the respondent - State opposed the said submissions
and justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below
and he further submitted that, merely because some of
the witnesses have turned hostile, that may not be a
ground to discredit the entire case. In fact, the other
witnesses though they have turned hostile, have
supported the case to the extent that the petitioner was
driving the said vehicle and due to the negligent act of
the driver, the accident had occurred. Therefore, the
findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction
are appropriate and proper. Interference with the said
findings may not be proper. Therefore, the petition has
to be dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:8463
8. Having considered the said submissions and also the
findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction,
the Trial Court mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws.2
and 3. However, on going through their evidence, it
appears that they have not supported the case of the
prosecution. In fact, the injured and the deceased
crossed the road suddenly without following the lane
discipline, as a result of which, the accident occurred.
Further, they deposed that the accident occurred due to
the negligent act of the pedestrians and not as a result of
rash and negligent act of the accused.
9. Though the evidence of these witnesses has been
controverted by PWs.13 and 14, it is needless to say that
they are not only the injured witnesses but also
interested witnesses to the case. Such being the fact,
the Courts below ought to have considered these
inconsistencies between the evidence of two groups and
benefit of doubt should have been extended to the
accused. As the Courts below have failed to extend the
benefit, interference with the findings is justified.
NC: 2025:KHC:8463
10. 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 08.10.2015 passed in
C.C.No.1323/2014 by the III Additional Civil
Judge and J.M.F.C, Hassan and the judgment
and order dated 01.12.2016 passed in
Crl.A.No.168/2015 by the III Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Hassan are set aside.
(iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A
of IPC r/w Sections 134-B, 187, 184, 196 of
Motor Vehicles Act.
(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
