Karnataka High Court
Sri.M.Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 16 June, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20730
CRL.RP No. 539 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 539 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI M RAJESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O. SRI M. SRINIVAS
R/AT. #F 74, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ROAD
SAUDAMINI LAYOUT, KONANAKUNTE
BENGALURU - 560 062.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SATYANARAYANA CHALKE S, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT
BANGALORE - 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 ORDER
DATED 05.01.2015 PASSED BY THE C.J.M., BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN C.C.No.7832/2013 AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN CRL.A.No.9/2015
SUSTAINING THE JUDGMENT, CONVICTION AND SENTENCE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20730
CRL.RP No. 539 of 2018
HC-KAR
ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279, 304A OF IPC AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
This revision petition is directed against the
judgment dated 24.04.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.9/2015 by
the I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural
District, Bangalore where under the judgment of
conviction dated 05.01.2015 passed in C.C.No.7832/2013
by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District
convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sections
279 and 304(A) of IPC and sentence passed thereon came
to be affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned HCGP for respondent - State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.06.2013
at about 5.00 p.m. on NICE road, near Beguru Naidu
NC: 2025:KHC:20730
HC-KAR
Bridge, the petitioner being driver of Swift Car Bearing
No.AP-09-BT-3244 drove it towards Electronic City from
Bannerghatta in a high speed, rash and negligent manner
and hit to a motor cycle bearing No.KA-06-W-3918 being
driven by the deceased namely G.Shivakumar, s/o
Gangadharaiah who fell on the road, sustained multiple
injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the charges has
examined six witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P9. The trial Court appreciating the evidence on
record has convicted the petitioner for the offence under
Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC and sentenced the
petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month
and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section
279 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for two
years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under
Section 304(A) of IPC. The trial Court has ordered both
the sentences to run concurrently.
NC: 2025:KHC:20730
HC-KAR
5. The petitioner/accused aggrieved by the said
judgment of conviction preferred an appeal before the
Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.9/2015 and the same came to
be dismissed by judgment dated 24.04.2018.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend
that the evidence on record will not establish the offences
alleged against the petitioner. There are material
contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
The Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination
over the dead body of the deceased has not been
examined. The cause of death has not been proved. The
post mortem report has been marked in the evidence of
PW.2 - investigating officer. The motor cycle of the
deceased had sustained damage on its front side and the
same would indicate that the petitioner's vehicle has not
dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased to its back side.
The presence of the eye witnesses namely PWs.1 and 5 on
the spot itself is doubtful. The deceased was initially taken
to Blossom Hospital and thereafter he has been taken to
NC: 2025:KHC:20730
HC-KAR
Apollo Hospital wherein he is reported as brought dead.
The prosecution has not placed any documents regarding
the treatment given to the deceased in the said hospitals.
With this he prayed for setting aside the impugned
judgment and acquit the petitioner.
7. Learned HCGP would contend that PW.1 and PW.5,
first informant are witnesses to the incident. They have
specifically stated in their evidence regarding the rash and
negligent driving of the petitioner and dashing it to the
motor cycle of the deceased. PW.1 in his cross-
examination has stated that the accused was driving his
vehicle in 75-80 kms speed. The Doctor who conducted
the post mortem examination over the dead body of
deceased has opined that the cause of death is due to
shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries
sustained. The Motor Vehicle Inspector has opined that
the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of
both the motor vehicles involved in the accident. The trial
Court and the appellate Court appreciated the evidence
NC: 2025:KHC:20730
HC-KAR
and have passed the impugned judgment. There are no
grounds to allow this revision petition. With this he prayed
to dismiss the revision petition.
8. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, this
Court has perused the impugned judgment and trial Court
records.
9. The accident occurred on 21.06.2013 at about
5.00 p.m. on Bannerghatta and Electronic City road i.e.
NICE road. The deceased was going on his motor cycle
bearing No.KA-06-W-3918 in the NICE road from
Bannerghatta to Electronic City and the accused was
driving his car bearing No.AP-09-BT-3244 from
Bannerghatta towards Electronic City and dashed to the
motor cycle of the deceased from hind side. The injured
Shivakumar was taken to Blossom Hospital and from there
he has been taken to Apollo Hospital wherein he is
reported to have brought dead.
NC: 2025:KHC:20730
HC-KAR
10. PW.5 is the first informant and he is a Security
Officer of NICE. He has filed first information before the
police on 21.06.2013 at 8.50 p.m. The first information is
at Ex.P8 wherein it is stated that accused drove his Swift
Car in high speed and in rash and negligent manner
dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased on middle part,
as a result motor cycle and the rider fell down and rider
sustained injury on his head, ear and leg. The first
informant has been examined as PW.5 who has deposed
regarding he witnessing the incident and filing of first
information. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-
examination to disbelieve his evidence. PW.1 is also one
of the pancha to the spot mahazar - Ex.P1 and he has
deposed regarding police drawing of spot mahazar as
shown by him. The sketch of the spot is at Ex.P4. In
Exs.P1 and P4 there is mention of tyre mark on the road
and the said tyre marks are of the car. The said aspect
itself indicate that the petitioner was driving his car in a
NC: 2025:KHC:20730
HC-KAR
high speed and inspite applying brake, he dashed his car
to the motor cycle of the deceased.
11. PW.1 is also an eye witness to the incident and
he has deposed the manner in which the accident
occurred. He has stated that it was going on his front side
and the swift car came in a high speed and dashed to the
motor cycle and he saw it. In the cross-examination he
stated that the car was driven in a speed of 75 - 80 kms
and the motor cycle at a speed of 40 to 50 kms. In the
cross-examination of PW.1 he has answered the
suggestions as under:
"PÉJ-06-qÀ§Æèå-3918 ªÉÆÃmÁgï ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï £À£Àß ªÀÄÄAzÉ
ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ JAzÀgÉ ¤d. »AzÀÄUÀqɬÄAzÀ §gÀÄwÛzÀÝ ªÀiÁgÀÄw
PÁgï ªÉÃUÀªÁV §AzÀÄ ªÉÆÃmÁgï §ÉÊPï£À »AzÀÄUÀqÉ rQÌ
ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É JAzÀgÉ ¤d".
12. In the said cross-examination the counsel for the
accused has suggested that motor cycle bearing No.KA-
06-W-3918 was going on front side and the car came from
NC: 2025:KHC:20730
HC-KAR
hind side in speed and dashed to the motor cycle on its
back. The said suggestion itself amounts to admission of
the manner of the accident by the petitioner - accused.
13. Merely because the motor cycle driven by the
deceased was found with damages on front side, it cannot
be said that the car of the accused has not dashed to the
motor cycle on its hind side. More so, in Ex.P8 - first
information, it is stated that the car has dashed to the
middle portion of the motor cycle. The said damages to
the motor cycle have been sustained when it fell on the
road. As per the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report at Ex.P5,
the car of the accused had sustained damage on its front
side which indicates that the front side of the car dashed
to the motor cycle of the deceased. The death of the
deceased in the accident is not disputed. The deceased
died on the same day of the accident. The Doctor who
conducted the post mortem examination over the dead
body of deceased has opined that the cause of death is
due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20730
HC-KAR
injuries sustained. Merely because the Doctor who
conducted post mortem examination over the dead body
of the deceased is not examined, it cannot be said that the
death has no nexus to the accident. From all these
aspects, the trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence on
record and passed the judgment of conviction. The
appellate Court also re-appreciated the evidence on record
taking into consideration all contentions of the
appellant/accused and rightly dismissed the appeal of the
appellant/accused. Therefore, the conviction of the
petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A)
of IPC is affirmed.
14. Petitioner was aged 33 years as on the date of
accident. The accident took place in May, 2013 i.e., 12
years ago. The petitioner has undergone trial for 12 years.
Now the petitioner is aged about 45 years having
responsibilities of the family. Learned counsel for
petitioner submits that the petitioner is having two minor
school going children and aged parents.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20730
HC-KAR
15. Considering the said aspect sentence requires to
be modified for imprisonment for one day, till the raising
of the Court with fine of Rs.3,00,000/- for offence under
Section 304-A of IPC and fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence
under Section 279 of IPC. Out of the fine amount, a sum
of Rs.2,90,000/- has to be paid to C.W.8 - Smt. S.
Sushma wife of deceased G.Shivakumar, as provided
under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
In the result, the following;
ORDER
i) Revision Petition is allowed in part. Order of
conviction for offence under Section 279 and
304-A of IPC is affirmed.
ii) While affirming the conviction of the petitioner
- accused for offence under Section 304-A of
IPC the sentence imposed by the trial Court
and affirmed by the appellate Court is modified
to one day imprisonment, till the raising of the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20730
HC-KAR
Court with fine of Rs.3,00,000/- and in default
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
2 months.
iii) While affirming the sentence imposed for
offence under Section 279 of IPC the sentence
imposed by the trial Court is modified only to
fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 7 days.
iv) Out of the said amount collected, a sum of
Rs.2,90,000/- is ordered to paid as
compensation to C.W.8 - Smt. Sushma, wife of
deceased G.Shivakumar as provided under
Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
v) The petitioner - accused has to surrender
himself before the trial Court before
commencement of the Court to serve the order
of imprisonment for 1 day, till the raising of the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20730
HC-KAR
Court and has to deposit the fine amount prior
to the date of surrender.
vi) The trial Court shall secure C.W.8 - Smt.
Sushma, wife of deceased G. Shivakumar for
disbursement of the compensation to her.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DKB/LRS
