Karnataka High Court
Syed Jan @ Abdul Rehaman vs State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27724
CRL.RP No. 206 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 206 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SYED JAN @ ABDUL REHAMAN
S/O ABDUL REHAMAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/A BESIDES OLD TOWN MASJID
LEPAKSHI VILLAGE
HINDUPUR TALUK
Digitally signed by
ANANDHAPUR DISTRICT - 515 331.
LAKSHMINARAYANA ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.
MURTHY RAJASHRI ...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI CHETHAN A C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY GUDIBANDE POLICE
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUDIBANDE DATED
14.07.2015 IN C.C.No.231/2009 (ANNEXURE-A) CONVICTING
THE PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER SECTIONS 279,337,338,304-
A IPC 1860 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF THE THIRD
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DATED 07.08.2020 IN CRL.A.No.57/2015
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27724
CRL.RP No. 206 of 2022
HC-KAR
(ANNEXURE-B) CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL
COURT AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
1. This criminal revision petition is directed against
the judgment dated 07.08.2020 passed in Crl.A. No.
57/2015 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Chikkaballapur whereunder the judgment of conviction of
the petitioner - accused dated 14.07.2015 passed in C.C.
No. 231/2009 by Civil Judge and JMFC, Gudibande
convicting the petitioner - accused for offence under
Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of IPC and sentence
thereon has been affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and
learned HCGP for respondent - State.
3. Case of the prosecution before the trial Court
was that on 31.12.2008 at 03.30 pm the accused being
the driver of GMS private bus bearing registration No. AP-
NC: 2025:KHC:27724
HC-KAR
02-G-2286 drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner so as to endanger to human life on Gudibande -
Amanigobyrasagarakere lake road, the bus turtled to the
ditch as a result of which inmates of the bus sustained
simple and grievous injuries, one Chikka
Venkataravanappa died. Charge sheet has been filed
against petitioner - accused for offence under Sections
279, 337, 338, 304-A of IPC. Prosecution has examined 49
witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.49 and got marked documents
as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.51. Statement of the accused has been
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate,
after hearing arguments on both sides, has convicted the
petitioner - accused for offence under Section 279, 337,
338, 304-A of IPC. Petitioner - accused has been
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.750/- for offence under
Section 279 of IPC; fine of Rs.350/- for offence under
Section 337 of IPC; fine of Rs.750/- for offence under
Section 338 of IPC with a default sentence and simple
imprisonment of 2 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- for
NC: 2025:KHC:27724
HC-KAR
offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Said judgment of
conviction and order on sentence had been challenged by
petitioner - accused before the Sessions Court in Crl.A. No.
57/2015 and the same came to be dismissed on merits
affirming the judgment of conviction and order on
sentence passed by the trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend
that the accident has not occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the petitioner. Road at the place of
accident was not a good road, it had pot holes and curve.
He contended that the accident had occurred due to the
cut of steering. P.W. 44 - Motor Vehicle Inspector has
admitted that he has not tested the bus by driving it.
P.W.17 has stated in his evidence that there was cut of
steering. He further submits that the road at the place of
accident was narrow, it was a curve road and one could
not drive the vehicle in high speed. He submits that
witnesses have stated that petitioner had stopped the bus
200 meters prior to the place of accident and that itself
NC: 2025:KHC:27724
HC-KAR
indicates that the bus was not driven in high speed. He
submits that evidence placed on record is not sufficient to
prove that petitioner - accused was driving the bus, at the
time of accident, in a rash and negligent manner. Without
considering this aspect Magistrate has convicted the
petitioner - accused and the appellate Court has erred in
affirming the said judgment of conviction. The trial Court
and the appellate Court ought to have given benefit of
doubt to the petitioner - accused. With this he prayed to
allow the revision petition and acquit the petitioner -
accused.
5. Learned HCGP has supported the reasons
assigned by the trial Court and the appellate Court. He
submits that evidence on record will clearly establish that
petitioner - accused drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner as a result of which the bus fell into the
ditch and 32 passengers sustained simple/grievous injuries
and one person died. He submits that P.W.1 to P.W.33
were passengers and they are eye witnesses to the
NC: 2025:KHC:27724
HC-KAR
incident. With this he prayed for dismissal of the revision
petition.
6. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and
learned HCGP for respondent - State this Court has
perused the trial Court records and appellate Court
records.
7. It is not in dispute that petitioner - accused was
driving the bus at the time of accident. The incident has
occurred on 31.12.2008 at 03.30 pm. Road at the place of
accident is having curve and on both sides there are guard
stone pillars. Ex.P.5 - spot mahazar indicates that the bus
went on to right side of road and damaged guard stone
pillars and fell into the ditch. P.W.1 to P.W.33 -
passengers have also stated regarding the manner in
which accident has taken place. P.W.1 to P.W.33 were
passengers in the said bus and they have sustained
injuries. Even though sketch has been prepared at the
time of preparing the spot mahazar - Ex.P.5, it is not
marked. Even on perusal of the said sketch, which is part
NC: 2025:KHC:27724
HC-KAR
of trial Court records, it is seen that at the place of
accident the road is having curve. Considering the said
aspect it appears that petitioner - accused had to take
curve on left side, could not take the bus on the curve,
went on to his right side and fell into the ditch. The very
said aspect indicates that the driver of the bus was driving
it in high speed as a result of which he could not control
the bus and it fell into the ditch on the right side.
8. It is suggested to P.W.44 - Motor Vehicle
Inspector who has issued report - Ex.P.16, after
examination of the bus, that the steering of the bus was
cut and for that he has stated that he did not test the bus
by driving it. P.W.17 - one of the passengers in the bus
has stated in his chief-examination that there was steering
cut and in the cross-examination he has stated that he
had stated so since there was talk in the hospital
regarding the same. There is no suggestion by the accused
to P.W.1 to P.W.33 - passengers and P.W.34 - conductor
NC: 2025:KHC:27724
HC-KAR
of the bus that there was cut of the steering and it caused
the accident.
9. Even petitioner - accused who was driving the
bus has not stated anything regarding how the accident
had taken place while recording his statement under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Merely because there are some pot
holes in the road it cannot be said that the driver of the
bus was driving it slowly. There is no suggestion to P.W.1
to P.W.33 that petitioner - accused was driving the bus
slowly. P.W.34 has stated in his cross-examination that
the bus was driven at a speed of 60 - 70 KMs and in his
chief-examination he has stated that driver of the bus
drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner.
10. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
there are brake marks on the road and it is noted in Ex.P.5
- spot mahazar. On meticulous reading of Ex.P.5 - spot
mahazar there are no such marks found on the road, but,
there are marks of tyre on right side after guard stone
pillars which show that those marks occurred when the
NC: 2025:KHC:27724
HC-KAR
bus was falling into the ditch. Considering all these aspects
it is clear that petitioner - accused drove the bus in a rash
and negligent manner as a result of which the accident
had occurred which resulted in death of one person and
caused injury to 32 passengers of the bus. Considering the
said aspect, the trial Court has rightly convicted the
petitioner - accused and appellate Court re-appreciated
the evidence on record and has rightly affirmed the
conviction passed by the trial Court. In the result the
revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
LRS
Ct.sm
