Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Riyaz vs State By Psi on 25 January, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3411
CRL.RP No. 1211 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1211 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMED RIYAZ,
S/O LATE MOHAMMED MADAR SAHEB,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
PRIVATE BUS DRIVER
BEARING NO.KA 16.A.1525,
R/O LINGADAHALLI,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANDESH T.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. STATE BY PSI,
by DEVIKA M LINGADAHALLI POLICE STATION,
Location: HIGH TARIKERE TALUK,
COURT OF REPRESETNED BY SPP,
KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVCTION
DATED 08.08.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.98/2015
CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE
CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. JMFC, TARIKERE DATED 24.06.2015 IN
C.C.NO.147/2013 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3411
CRL.RP No. 1211 of 2016
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279 AND 304(A) OF
IPC BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP. WHICH IS NECESSARY.
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 for the revision petitioner and
also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent State.
2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the accused
for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of
I.P.C. and punishment of Rs.1,000/- fine for the offence under
Section 279 of I.P.C. and 2 years of imprisonment and fine of
Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 304A of I.P.C.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that on 01.02.2013 at about 4.00 p.m., the driver of the bus
drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the motorcycle which was coming in the opposite
direction by taking the vehicle from left side to right side, as a
result the motorcyclist sustained injuries and succumbed to the
injuries. The police have investigated the matter and filed the
NC: 2025:KHC:3411
charge sheet and the accused was secured and he did not plead
guilty. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to
P.W.7 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to Ex.P13. The
accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and he did
not lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court having
considered the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 comes to the
conclusion that they are the eye-witnesses and their evidence is
credible and accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted
the accused.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed
before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court on re-
appreciation of the evidence available on record, particularly
taking note of the answers elicited from the mouth of P.W.5 that
in order to avoid the branch of the tree, accident was occurred
and not on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of
the bus, comes to the conclusion that suggestion of the accused
is very clear that he has admitted the fact that due to branch of
the tree he took the bus towards the right side of the road and
caused the accident. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of
the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the photographs which are
not disputed, concurred with the order of the Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:3411
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction
and confirmation, the present revision petition is filed before this
Court.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that though there are major contradictions in the
evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 5, both the Courts accepted the
evidence of the prosecution theory and committed an error.
Both the Courts failed to take note of Ex.P.11 sketch and the
accident was occurred in the middle of the road and also failed
to take note of the IMV report Ex.P.12, which clearly discloses
that the centre of the bus bumper was damaged and fails to
take note of the damages caused to the motorcycle and also
fails to take note of photographs Exs.P.2 to 7 and hence it
requires interference of this Court since the findings of both the
Courts are not legal.
7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent State would contend that
the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 is clear that P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 are
the eye-witnesses and they categorically deposed that the driver
of the bus suddenly took the bus on the right side from left side
and as a result the accident occurred. The Trial Court and the
NC: 2025:KHC:3411
Appellate Court have not committed any error in appreciating
both oral and documentary evidence placed on record.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent State and also looking into the material available
on record, the points that arise for the consideration of this
Court are:
(i) Whether both the Courts have committed an
error in appreciating the evidence available on
record and whether the findings are not legal
and suffers from any infirmity and whether it
requires interference of this Court by exercising
the revisional jurisdiction?
(ii) What order?
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and on perusal of the material available on record,
Ex.P.1 complaint was given immediately at 4.45 p.m. when the
accident was taken place at 4.00 p.m. and it is the averment in
the complaint that the motorcyclist was proceeding in the
opposite direction of the bus and the bus came in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the motorcyclist, as a
result he sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. It is
NC: 2025:KHC:3411
important to note that Ex.P.2 photograph of the bus shows that
the middle front portion of the bus was damaged including the
number plate and hence it is clear that the motorcyclist went
and dashed against the front portion of the bus that too on the
middle of the bus. It is important to note that the bus was on
the left side of the road in terms of Ex.P.7. It is important to
note that the documentary evidence of Ex.P.11 sketch is clear
that the accident spot was on the middle of the road and sketch
discloses that the road measures 17 feet and either side of the
road 8½ feet is shown and this document is not disputed.
Ex.P.12 is very clear with regard to the damages caused to the
bus is in the middle of the front portion of the bus and front
portion of the motorcycle was damaged and hence it is clear
that the motorcyclist went and dashed against the middle
portion of the bus.
10. It is important to note that the prosecution relies
upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, who are the star
witnesses. P.W.1 speaks about he came to know about the
accident was occurred due to negligence on the part of the
driver of the bus, but he is not an eyewitness. He admits that
he did not witness the accident and the deceased is his maternal
uncle. P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 claims that they are the eyewitnesses.
NC: 2025:KHC:3411
P.W.2 says that the driver of the bus suddenly took the bus from
left side to right side, but in the complaint there is no such
statement that the driver of the bus suddenly took the bus from
left side to right side. It is important to note that he
categorically says that he has not given any statement before
the police with regard to the accident and also admits that when
he saw the bus, the bus was parked on the left side of the road.
He also says that it was on the left side of the road and hence
his evidence is not credible. He says that in terms of Ex.P.4 the
accident was occurred on the left side of the road and hence his
evidence is also not credible since accident spot clearly discloses
that it was in the middle of the road.
11. The other witnesses also reiterated that the driver of
the bus took the bus from left side to the right side and the
accident was occurred. In the cross-examination of P.W.3, he
admits that near Kenchapura gate turn, normally the driver of
the bus used to drive the vehicle in a slow manner and he says
that the accident occurred on the right side of the road and
P.W.2 says that it was on the left side. P.W.3 says that it was on
the right side of the road and again says that it was in the
middle of the road. There were branches of the tree and the
accident was occurred. P.W.4 categorically admits that she did
NC: 2025:KHC:3411
not witness the accident. P.W.5 also deposes like P.W.2 and
P.W.3, but in the cross-examination he admits that he saw the
bus at a distance of 30 to 40 metres. He says that there is a
bus stand near Kenchapura gate and they used to park the
private buses and also they drove the vehicle in a slow manner
near the bus stop. He admits that there is a curve near
Kenchapura gate and he says that the accident was occurred on
the right side of the road of Tarikere, but he says that bus came
from right side and took the bus towards the left side and the
same is contrary to the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. These
discrepancies and contradictions are not properly appreciated by
the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and the findings of the
Trial Court is against both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record and contradictions are found in the evidence of
the witnesses. The documentary evidence reveals that the
accident was occurred in the middle of the road and the
witnesses speaks about the driver of the bus took the bus from
left side to the right side and one witness says that the accident
was occurred on the left side and another witness says that the
accident was occurred on the right side. The photographs which
are marked are clear that the motorcyclist went and dashed
against the middle of the bus and as a result, middle portion of
NC: 2025:KHC:3411
the bus was damaged and the number plate was also damaged
and the findings given by the Trial Court is against Exs.P.11 and
12. When such material contradictions are found, both the
Courts failed to consider the same. The very finding is not legal
and perverse, since material on record was not appreciated in a
proper perspective. Hence, the matter requires interference and
the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused having
considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record that there was no any rash and negligent driving on the
part of the driver in view of the admission on the part of the
witnesses that the accident was occurred near Kenchapura gate
where private vehicles bus parking was there and admitted the
same in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses that
the vehicle would slow down near the bus stand. Hence, it
requires interference of this Court to exercise the revisional
jurisdiction.
12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal revision petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence is set aside and the confirmation
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3411
order passed by the Appellate Court is also set
aside. If any bond is executed by the
petitioner, the same is cancelled and if any fine
amount is deposited, the same is ordered to be
refunded in favour of the petitioner, on proper
identification.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS,MD
