Karnataka High Court

Sri.Santosh S/O Parameshappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649
                                                    CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2020


                HC-KAR



                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                      DHARWAD BENCH

                           DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                           BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
                       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100016 OF 2020
                                  (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
                BETWEEN:

                SRI. SANTOSH S/O. PARAMESHAPPA BISALAHALLI,
                AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/ATTENDER,
                R/O: CHIKKANAJI, TALUK: BYADGI,
                DISTRICT: HAVERI-581106.
                                                                  ...PETITIONER
                (BY SMT. RAJASHREE, ADVOCATE)

                AND:

                THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                BY KAGINELE POLICE STATION,
                BY ASPP HCB, DHARWAD.
                                                                ...RESPONDENT

CHANDRASHEKAR
                (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI

                     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
                SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
Location:       REVISION PETITION AND MAY EXCISE THE INHERENT POWERS BY
HIHG            SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 08.11.2019
COURT OF
KARNATAKA       PASSED BY THE SECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
                JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
                NO.149/2018, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT
                OF   CONVICTION   AND    SENTENCE   DATED      06.10.2018   IN
                C.C.NO.118/2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
                JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BYADGI, WHEREIN THE
                ACCUSED/THE PRESENT PETITIONER IS CONVICTED FOR THE
                OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 279, 337, 304(A) OF I.P.C. AND ETC.,.

                     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON           FOR
                HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                               -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649
                                     CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2020


HC-KAR



                          ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND)

Heard Smt. Rajashree, learned counsel for the

petitioner-accused and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned

Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

2. The present revision petition is filed by the

accused-petitioner challenging the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 06.10.2018 passed in C.C.

No.118/2017 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and

JMFC, Byadagi (for short, 'the trial Court'), and the

judgment dated 08.11.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal

No.149/2018 by the Court of the II Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur (for short,

'the appellate Court').

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on

11.03.2015, at about 7:00 p.m., the accused, while riding

a TVS XL motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/U-

6389, dashed against the complainant and one Dadapeer

from behind. As a result, the complainant sustained

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649

HC-KAR

grievous injuries, and Dadapeer succumbed to the injuries

at KMC, Hubballi.

4. The prosecution filed a charge sheet against the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279,

337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,

'IPC'), and Sections 3 and 143 read with Sections 181 and

187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the MV

Act').

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution

examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and marked 23

documents as Exhibits P1 to P23. The statement of the

accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

6. The trial Court, based on the evidence of PW-5,

one of the injured survivors, held that the accused

committed the charged offences. It further relied on

Exhibit P8 (the complaint dated 12.03.2015) and Exhibit

P6 (the post-mortem report) to conclude that the death

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649

HC-KAR

resulted from the injuries sustained. Based on the

foregoing evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused

under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the IPC and

imposed simple imprisonment for 30 days and a fine of

Rs. 500 for offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC,

simple imprisonment for 30 days and a fine of Rs. 250 for

offence under Section 337 IPC, and simple imprisonment

for one year and a fine of Rs. 3,000 for offence under

Section 304-A of IPC.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, the

accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.149/2018. The

appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence on

record, confirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal.

8. Smt. Rajashree, learned counsel for the

petitioner-accused, submits that the alleged accident

occurred on 11.03.2015 at about 7:00 p.m., whereas the

complaint at Exhibit P8 was registered on 12.03.2015 at

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649

HC-KAR

about 8:45 p.m., upon receipt of the MLC intimation from

the hospital. It is contended that there is an unexplained

delay of nearly 24 hours in lodging the complaint. Learned

counsel further submits that, according to the prosecution,

the accused allegedly dashed against the complainant and

the deceased. However, as per Exhibit P15, the

complainant sustained only abrasion injuries.

8.1 It is further submitted that, according to Exhibit

P5-the post-mortem report, the cause of death was

respiratory failure resulting from head injuries. Learned

counsel contends that the prosecution has failed to

establish that the deceased sustained injuries in the

alleged accident and that death ensued as a result of such

injuries. In this regard, it is pointed out that no medical

records pertaining to the treatment of the deceased have

been produced. Even assuming that the death was due to

injuries, the prosecution has not proved that such injuries

were sustained in the alleged accident involving the

accused.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649

HC-KAR

9. On the other hand, Sri T. Hanumareddy,

learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the

respondent-State, submits that PW-5-the complainant,

was walking along with the deceased at the time of the

incident and sustained injuries along with the deceased. It

is submitted that PW-5, as reflected in Exhibit P8, has

provided a consistent and complete account of the

incident, and no material contradictions were elicited in

cross-examination to discredit his testimony. Hence, it is

contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond

reasonable doubt. Learned Additional Government

Advocate further submits that the concurrent findings

recorded by both the Courts below are based on properly

appreciated and established evidence.

10. Considered the submissions advanced by the

learned counsels for the respective parties and perused

the material on record.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649

HC-KAR

11. The case of the prosecution is that on

11.03.2015, at about 7:00 p.m., the accused, while riding

his TVS XL motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/U-

6389, dashed against the complainant and one Dadapeer

from behind. It is further alleged that Dadapeer sustained

grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on

16.03.2015. To establish the cause of death, the

prosecution has relied upon Exhibit P6-the post-mortem

report.

11.1 According to Ex.P6-the post-mortem report, the

cause of death of Dadapeer is attributed to respiratory

failure resulting from head injuries sustained. Ex.P6,

however, merely establishes the medical cause of death.

What is crucial is whether such injuries were sustained in

the alleged accident.

12. The prosecution alleges that the accident

occurred on 11.03.2015 at about 7:00 p.m., during which

Dadapeer suffered grievous injuries and was shifted to the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649

HC-KAR

hospital. The complainant-PW.5 also sustained injuries in

the said incident. However, despite the alleged accident

and the injured being taken to the hospital, no FIR was

registered on 11.03.2015. It was only on 12.03.2015, at

about 8:45 p.m., that the complainant visited the hospital

for treatment, an MLC was prepared, and thereafter the

complaint, as per Ex.P8, was recorded and the FIR

registered.

13. The prosecution has offered no explanation as

to what transpired between 7:00 p.m. on 11.03.2015 and

8:45 p.m. on 12.03.2015. It is recorded that Dadapeer

died on 16.03.2015 while allegedly under treatment.

However, no medical records have been produced to

establish that he was, in fact, receiving treatment during

this period. This omission assumes significance in light of

the fact that the circumstantial evidence on record does

not conclusively connect the accident to the injuries that

allegedly caused the death. This failure on the part of the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649

HC-KAR

prosecution lends credence to the defence version that the

accused has been falsely implicated.

14. The trial Court and the appellate Court, without

taking the aforesaid aspects into consideration, committed

an error in placing undue reliance on the evidence of

PWs.5 and 8, as well as Exs.P6 and P8, to conclude that

the death of Dadapeer was caused by head injuries

sustained in the alleged accident. The evidence placed on

record by the prosecution is neither sufficient nor reliable

to sustain the conviction of the accused. The findings

recorded by both the trial Court and the appellate Court

suffer from a lack of proper appreciation of the material

evidence on record.

15. This Court is of the considered view that the

judgments of both the Courts below suffers from infirmity

and misappreciation of evidence and, therefore, cannot be

sustained in law.

16. Accordingly, the following:

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8649

HC-KAR

ORDER

i. The criminal revision petition is allowed.

ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 06.10.2018 passed in C.C. No.118/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Byadagi and the judgment dated 08.11.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.149/2018 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur, are hereby set aside.