Karnataka High Court
G Eshwar vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19419
CRL.RP No. 443 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 443 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
G. ESHWAR
S/O SUBBA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
KSRTC DRIVER,
DHARMASTHALA DEPOT
R/O LYNAKLIDU GRAMA,
HARIHAR PALLATTADAKKA POST,
SULLYA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATHVIK M., ADV. FOR
SRI. SATYANARAYANA CHALKE S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: HIGH COURT
THROUGH PSI
OF KARNATAKA
HONNALI POLICE STATION,
HONNALI
(REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYAN A., HCGP FOR
RESPONDENT/STATE.)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 02.01.2014 IN C.C.NO.338/2011 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNALI, CONVICTING
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19419
CRL.RP No. 443 of 2017
HC-KAR
THE PETR. FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 279,337,338,304A OF IPC
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2016 IN
CRL.A.NO.10/2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. DIST. AND
S.J., DAVANAGERE DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND ACQUIT THE
ACCUSED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL ORDER
Revision petitioner has preferred this Revision
Petition against the judgment of conviction and order on
sentence passed in C.C.No.338/2011 dated 02.01.2014 by
the Court of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Honnali (hereinafter
referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) which is confirmed by
the Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Davangere in Criminal
Appeal No.10/2014 dated 24.08.2016 (hereinafter referred
to as 'Appellate Court' for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
revision petition are referred to as per their status and
rank before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this Revision Petition
are that the Honnali Police have registered the case
NC: 2025:KHC:19419
HC-KAR
against accused for the offences punishable under Section
279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. It is
alleged by the prosecution that on 28.01.2011 in the early
hours at around 1.30 am, the accused being the driver of
the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-19-F-2805
drove it on the Honnali-Harihara road from Honnali
towards Harihara in a high speed, rash and negligent
manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety
of others and when the bus came near the A.K. Colony, it
dashed to a Mini Lorry bearing registration No.KA-35-9293
which was coming from the opposite direction. Due to the
impact Devlanaik who was travelling in the cabin of the
lorry sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to injuries at
the spot. The driver of the mini lorry CW.9 Mr. Ganesh
and CW.10 Mr. Meetyanaik who were seated in the cabin
sustained grievous and simple injuries. Thus, accused has
committed the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and
304A of Indian Penal Code.
NC: 2025:KHC:19419
HC-KAR
4. After filing of charge sheet, the case was
registered against this accused in C.C.No.338/2011 and
summons was issued to him. In pursuance of summons,
accused appeared before the Trial Court and enlarged on
bail. Charges framed and read over and explained to the
accused. Having understood the same, the accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the case of prosecution, in all, 7
witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 7 and 9 documents
were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. On closure of prosecution
side evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. was recorded. He has totally denied the evidence
of prosecution witnesses and he has not chosen to lead
any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard on
both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for
the alleged offences and sentence was passed accordingly.
Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred appeal
before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Davangere
in Criminal Appeal No.10/2014 which came to be
NC: 2025:KHC:19419
HC-KAR
dismissed on 24.08.2016. Being aggrieved by the
judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by
both the Courts, the revision petitioner/accused has
preferred this present revision petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for revision
petitioner would submit that both the Courts have not
applied their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances
of the case. Both the Courts have failed to appreciate the
evidence on record in its proper perspective. The alleged
eye-witnesses i.e. PWs.1 to 4 have not deposed anything
as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver
of the offending vehicle.
7. Further, he would submit that PW.5- Meetyanaik
who is an injured witness has deposed his evidence that
lorry was parked near the river of Honnali and at that
time, a government bus came from Honnali and dashed to
the lorry from front side. PW.3 - Ganeshnaik who is also
an injured witness has not deposed as to the rash and
negligent act on the part of driver of government bus, but
NC: 2025:KHC:19419
HC-KAR
he simply stated that the driver of the said bus drove the
same in high speed, but the exact speed of the bus is not
disclosed by him.
8. PW.7 - Rajunaik who is the complainant has
deposed his evidence that the driver of the bus came and
dashed to the parked lorry causing accident. Thus, there
is no consistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses,
whether the lorry was stationery or was it kinetic.
Absolutely there are no evidence to attract the alleged
commission of offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and
304A of Indian Penal Code against the accused. However,
the Trial Court has convicted the accused. On all these
grounds, he sought to allow the revision petition.
9. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader would submit that the Trial Court has properly
appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law
and facts and that there are no grounds to interfere with
the impugned judgment of conviction and order on
sentence passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by
NC: 2025:KHC:19419
HC-KAR
the Appellate Court. On this ground, he sought to dismiss
the revision petition.
10. Having heard the arguments advanced on both
sides and on perusal of the material placed before me, the
following points would arise for my consideration.
i. Whether the revision petitioner/accused has
made out grounds to interfere with the
impugned judgment of conviction passed by
the Trial Court which is confirmed by the
Appellate Court as the same is illegal,
perverse, capricious and suffers from legal
infirmities?
ii. What order?
11. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: in affirmative
Point No.2: as per final order.
Regarding point No.1:
12. I have carefully examined the material placed
before me.
13. The case of the prosecution is that Honnali
Police have registered case against the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and
NC: 2025:KHC:19419
HC-KAR
304A of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the
prosecution that on 28.01.2011 at around 1.30 a.m., the
accused, driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration
No.KA-19-F-2805 drove it on the Honnali-Harihara road
from Honnali towards Harihara in a high speed, rash and
negligent manner so as to endanger human life and
personal safety of others and when the bus came near the
A.K. Colony, it dashed to a Mini Lorry bearing registration
No.KA-35-9293 which was coming from the opposite
direction. Due to the impact of the accident, inmates of
the cabin of the lorry, Devlanaik sustained gatal injuries
and succumbed to injuries at the spot and the driver of the
mini lorry CW.9 Mr. Ganesh and CW.10 Meetyanaik,
sustained grievous and simple injuries.
14. PW.1-Krishnanaik and PW.2-Vamadev have
deposed in their evidence as to the conduct of mahazar as
per Ex.P1. PW.3-Ganeshnaik who is injured, has deposed
that about two years back, at about 1.00 a.m., he was
proceeding in a mini lorry from Basarahalli Tanda towards
NC: 2025:KHC:19419
HC-KAR
Chikkamagaluru by loading manure along with
Devalanaika, Rajunaika and Geethlanaika and when they
came near Malebennur, from Honnali side, one KSRTC bus
came in a high speed and dashed towards right side of the
lorry. As a result, he has received injuries to his legs, one
Devalanaika died on spot and Meetyanaika also sustained
injuries. The lorry was damaged and he has taken
treatment in Davangere hospital. The accident occurred
due to the fault of bus driver and he has not seen the
driver.
15. PW.5-Meetyanaika has deposed in his evidence
that he was proceeding in a lorry from Harihara to
Chikkamagaluru and the lorry was driven by driver
Ganeshnaika. There were four inmates in the lorry and
the lorry was parked near the river of Honnali, at that
time, a KSRTC bus came from Honnali and dashed to the
front side of the lorry. As a result, he has received injuries
to his legs and Ganeshnaika also sustained injuries.
Thereafter, he was shifted to Malebennur hospital and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19419
HC-KAR
remaining were shifted to Davangere hospital. The
accident occurred due to fault of the driver of the bus and
he has not seen the bus driver.
16. PW.7- Rajunaika has deposed in his evidence
that about two years back, he was proceeding in a lorry
along with other four persons. The lorry was parked and
the bus came and dashed to this lorry and as a result, he
has received injuries and one Raghu also sustained
grievous injuries to his both legs. They have taken
treatment in the hospital. This accident occurred due to
the fault of driver of the bus. After filing the complaint,
the police came to the spot and conducted panchanama as
per Ex.P1.
17. PW.4 - C D Rajachari, PSI and PW.6 - M P
Nagaraj, police officials, have deposed as to their
respective investigation.
18. On the basis of the complaint filed by PW.7-
Rajunaika, the Honnali Police have registered the case in
crime No.23/2011 against the accused Eshwara, driver of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19419
HC-KAR
the bus bearing registration No.KA-19-F-2805 and
submitted the First Information Report to the Court on
28.01.2011 at 2.00 p.m. In Ex.P7-complaint, it is stated
that a mini lorry was proceeding from Basanahalli Tanda
towards Chikkamagaluru and one KSRTC bus came in a
high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed to
the lorry. PW.7-Rajunaika who is the complainant has
deposed that the bus was coming from opposite side and
the driver of the lorry stopped their lorry and the driver of
the lorry Ganeshnaika has not deposed that he has
stopped the lorry before this accident. The material
witnesses have not deposed as to the rash and negligent
act on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus. They have
also not deposed as to how the accident occurred. They
have simply stated that the accident occurred due to fault
of the driver of KSRTC bus and exact speed of the bus is
also not disclosed by the driver of lorry i.e. PW.3-
Ganeshnaika.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19419
HC-KAR
19. On reconsideration/re-evaluation and re-
appreciation of the entire evidence on record, there is no
cogent, convincing, corroborative evidence before this
Court to prove the guilt of the accused. The evidence
placed by the prosecution is not sufficient to come to the
conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent act on the part of the driver of the bus. Both the
Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on
record in accordance with law and facts. Accordingly, the
impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence
passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the
Appellate Court warrants interference by this Court as the
same is illegal, perverse, capricious and suffers from legal
infirmities. Hence, I answer point No.1 in affirmative.
Regarding point No.2:
20. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal revision petition is allowed.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19419
HC-KAR
ii. Judgment of conviction and order on
sentence dated 02.01.2014 passed in
C.C.No.338/2011 by the Court of the Civil
Judge & JMFC, Honnali, which is confirmed
by the judgment dated 24.08.2016 passed
in Crl.A.No.10/2014 by the Court of the
Principal District & Sessions Judge,
Davangere, are set aside.
iii. Revision petitioner/accused is acquitted
of the offences punishable under Section
279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal
Code.
iv. The fine amount if any, deposited by the
revision petitioner/accused shall be
refunded to him in accordance with law.
v. Registry is directed to send copy of this
order along with trial court records to the
concerned Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
SSD
