Karnataka High Court
Sri. Rajesh vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2025
-1-
CRL.RP No. 879 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 879 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI RAJESH,
S/O DEJAPPA GOWDA,
AGED 26 YEARS,
PATLA HOUSE,
PADUVETTU VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
D.K.-574214
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M., ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PUTTUR RURAL CIRCLE, UPPINANGADY,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYAN, HCGP.)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.09.2016 IN
CRL.A.NO.5003/2016 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DIST. AND S.J.,
D.K., MANGALORE SITTING AT PUTTUR D.K., AND
C.C.N.1942/2008 DATED 28.10.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT
OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR D.K., AND DIRECT
THAT, THE PETR. BE ACQUITTED OF THE OFFENCES ALLEGED
AND CHARGED AGAINST HIM.
-2-
CRL.RP No. 879 of 2017
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 09.06.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV ORDER
The revision petitioner/accused has preferred this revision
petition against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 21st October, 2015 passed by the learned
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Puttur (for short hereinafter
referred to as "trial Court") in CC No.1942 of 2008, which is
confirmed by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, sitting at Puttur (for short
hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Court"), in Crl.A.No.5003
of 2016 dated 26th September, 2016.
2. Parties to this revision petition are referred to as
per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Circle
Inspector of Police, Puttur Rural Circle, Uppinangady, has filed
the charge sheet against the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304(A) of IPC
and Section 3 read with Section 181 of the IMV Act. It is
-3-
CRL.RP No. 879 of 2017
alleged that CW.1/PW.1-Rajappa Gowda is the resident of
Periadka and Chibidre village, Belthangady Taluk, and that on
20th May 2008, he and his relatives Nemanna Gowda, Laxmana
Gowda, Naveena and Sooryanarayana Bhat and others had
been to Subramanya Temple in two jeeps for performing 'Sarpa
Samskara'. After the pooja, they headed back from
Subramanya Temple at 2.30 p.m. In one Jeep bearing
Registration No.KA-21-A-5466, Suryanarayana Bhat, Nemanna
Gowda, Laxmana Gowda, Naveena, Anne Gowda, Janardhana
Gowda, Somanatha, Sathish Gowda, Kamalaksha, Nemanna
Gowda and its driver-Rajesh were travelling; and CW.1, his
relatives and others, were travelling in another Jeep bearing
Registration No.KA-20-M-1428. The ill-fated Jeep bearing
Registration No.KA-21-A-5466 was being driven by the accused
herein. The said Jeep was followed by the Jeep in which CW.1
was proceeding. When the said jeep was proceeding near
Siribagilu on Subramanya-Gundya Road, near Pilicharu, the
driver drove the same in a rash and high speed so as to
endanger human life, and while so driving, accused lost control
and dashed to a Marjoram (maruva) tree that was situated at a
distance of 5 feet from the edge of the said Subramanya-
Gundya road. Due to impact, the top of the said Jeep was
-4-
CRL.RP No. 879 of 2017
entangled in the tree itself and it further proceeded 30 feet
towards northern side and turned turtle, as a result of which,
the inmates of the said Jeep viz. Narayana Bhat, Kamala, Anni
@ Gangayya Gowda, Nemanna, Naveena and Laxmana Gowda
died at the spot, and its driver-accused Rajesh, one Nemanna
Gowda, Janardhana, Somanatha and Sathish Gowda sustained
grievous injuries. Immediately CW.1 shifted them to the
nearby hospital in an Ambulance with the assistance of
passers-by and later he lodged complaint with the police. After
investigation, police have submitted the charge sheet against
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279,
337, 338 and 304A of IPC.
4. After filing of charge sheet, the case was registered
in CC No.1942 of 2008 and summons was issued against the
accused. In response to the summons, the accused appeared
before the Court through his counsel and was enlarged on bail.
The substance of plea was recorded. Having understood the
same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution
has, in all, examined fourteen witnesses as PW.1 to PW.14 and
33 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P33. Accused had
-5-
CRL.RP No. 879 of 2017
totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and
submitted his written statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C
stating that the accident occurred due to the mechanical defect
and he also sustained grievous injuries to his head and other
parts of the body. His Driving Licence was lost and he had
forgotten the number of Driving Licence and also adduced the
defence evidence and one of the witnesses was examined as
DW.1 and two documents were marked as Exs.D1 and D2.
6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, Trial
Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and Section 3 read
with Section 181 of the IMV Act.
7. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused had
preferred the appeal before the appellate court in
Crl.A.No.5003/2016. The said appeal was dismissed on
26.09.2016.
8. Being aggrieved by judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which is confirmed
by the Appellate Court, the accused has preferred this revision
petition.
-6-
CRL.RP No. 879 of 2017
9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the Trial Court, which is confirmed by the Appellate
Court, is bad in law and contrary to the materials placed on
record. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, who is
the eyewitness, has clearly admitted that he reached the spot
after five minutes of the incident, which clearly reflects that he
is not at all an eye-witness to this incident. The PW.1 has
stated that the spot mahazar was prepared at the police
station, therefore, the prosecution did not prove the spot
mahazar and seizure mahazar, which is fatal to the case of the
prosecution. The Trial Court has rightly brushed aside the
defence of the petitioner. In fact, the defence of the petitioner
is that due to the fault of the steering and break system, the
accident occurred, for which he has examined the DW1, an
expert in the field of automation. Besides, the Inspector of
Motor Vehicles has not appeared before the Court to give
evidence, which adds prudence to the effect that the accident
occurred on account of mechanical defect and not due to the
negligence of the petitioner-accused. Non-consideration of
these vital aspects is bad in law. The Trial Court did not
consider the defence taken by the petitioner in its proper
-7-
CRL.RP No. 879 of 2017
perspective. Legal proposition says that the accused need not
prove defence case beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of
proof required of the accused is just to throw a stone of doubt
on the case of the prosecution. However, the Trial Court did
not consider the case in its proper perspective. The reading of
the judgment shows that the learned Magistrate has put the
blame with regard to each and every aspect on the accused,
forgetting the laws laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a
catena of decisions has held that it is for the complainant to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and accused need not
prove the case. Admittedly, all the alleged eye-witnesses are
relatives of the deceased and only to claim insurance amount,
they have deposed falsely. Therefore, the Courts below ought
to have given the benefit of doubt to the petitioner-accused.
10. The Trial Court rejected the defence evidence on
the count that the defence witness does not have any academic
qualifications. This is improper appreciation of evidence. Just
because an expert has not worked in any company, does not
mean that he is not an expert. Even a small farmer will be an
expert in his own field. Similarly, DW1 is also an expert with
eighteen years of experience in automation field. Non-
consideration of the same is bad in law. Both Courts have held
-8-
CRL.RP No. 879 of 2017
that the petitioner does not posses the valid Driving Licence,
pressing aside the explanation of the petitioner that on account
of the accident he has also suffered injuries on his head and
thereafter he has lost his conscious and he has also lost his
Driving Licence and does not remember its number and he
could not trace out the Driving Licence on time.
11. As against this, Sri. Venkat Satyanarayan, the
learned High Court Government Pleader, would submit that
both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on
record in accordance with law and facts and absolutely there
are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court,
which is confirmed by the Appellate Court and sought for
dismissal of this revision petition.
12. Having heard the arguments on both sides and
perusal of records, the following points, would arise for
consideration:
1. Whether the revision petitioner has made out a
ground for revision of judgment of conviction
and order on sentence passed by the trial
court, which is confirmed by the appellate
-9-
CRL.RP No. 879 of 2017
Court is illegal, perverse, capricious and suffers
from legal infirmities?
2. What order?
Regarding Point No.1:
13. A perusal of the material placed before me makes it
clear that accused was the driver of jeep bearing No.KA-21/A-
5466 at the relevant point of time. The accused has taken
defence in his defence statement made under Section 313 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, in which it is stated as under:
"¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 313 gÀrAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆævÀ
¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ ºÉýPÉ"
ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ DgÉÆævÀ «£ÀªÀÄæªÁV
©ü£Àß«¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ:
¢£ÁAPÀ: 20-05.2008gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 3.15gÀ ªÉýUÉ ¥ÀÄvÀÆÛgÀÄ
vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ¹j¨ÁV®Ä UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¦°ZÁgÀÄ JA§°è UÀÄAqÀå ¸ÀħæºÀätå
¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è fÃ¥ÀÄ £ÀA§æ PÉ.J.21-J 5466 C¥ÀWÁvÀPÉÌ
FqÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀvÀå«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ
DgÉÆæ¹zÀAvÉ ¸À¢æ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀÅ £À£Àß CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¤®ðPÀëöåzÀ ZÁ®£É¬ÄAzÀ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀvÀåPÉÌ
zÀÆgÀªÁzÀÄzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¸À¢æ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀħæºÀätå¢AzÀ UÀÄAqÀå PÀqÉUÉ £À£Àß
fÃ¥ÀÄ £ÀA§æ PÉ.J.21-J-5466 ¤zsÁ£ÀªÁV ¸ÀħæºÀätå-UÀÄAqÀå
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 879 of 2017
gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ JqÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÉÝ£ÀÄ. fÃ¥ÀÄ
¥ÀÄvÀÆÛgÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ¹j¨ÁV®Ä UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¦°ZÁgÀÄ JA§°è
vÀ®Ä¥ÀÄwÛzÀÝAvÉ fæ£À ¸ÉÖÃjAUÀ gÁqï vÀÄAqÁV CzÀgÀ D¬Ä¯ï
°ÃPÉÃf¤AzÁV fæ£À ¨ÉæÃPï ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜUÀ¼ÀÆ PÀÆqÀ ¤²ÌçAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀÄ
fÃ¥ÀÄ ¸ÀħæºÀätå-UÀÄAqÀå gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ¦°ZÁgÀÄ JA§°è JqÀÀ
wgÀÄ«£À°è JqÀPÉÌ wgÀĪÀÅ ¥ÀqÀPÉƼÀî®Ä DUÀzÉ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ §® ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è
EzÀÝ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄgÀPÉÌ rQÌ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄzÀgÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀ
¸ÀA¨sÀ«¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ £À£Àß CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¤®ðPÀëöå¢AzÀ
DVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ C®è.
¸À¢æ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀÅ £Á£ÀÄ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ fæ£À AiÀiÁAwæPÀ
zÉÆõÀ¢AzÀ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ £À£Àß vÀ¦à¤AzÁV DzÀzÝÀ ®è.
C®èzÉ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è «¨sÁdPÀªÁUÀ° ¸ÀÆZÀ£Á ¥sÀ®PÀªÁUÀ° E®èzÉ
EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ ¦.qÀ.§Äè.r PÀÆqÁ C¥ÀWÁvÀPÉÌ PÁgÀtªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¸À¢æ C¥ÀWÁvÀ¢AzÀ £À£Àß vÀ¯É ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉqÉUÉ wêÀæ vÀgÀºÀzÀ
UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ £À£Àß £É£É¥ÀÄ ±ÀQÛ PÀÆqÁ QëÃtªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀð £À£Àß ZÁ®£Á ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è
PÀ¼ÉzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁtÂUÉ £ÀA§gï PÀÆqÁ £À£ÀUÉ
ªÀÄgÉvÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¤gÀ¥ÀgÁ¢üAiÀiÁzÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß F PÉù¤AzÀ zÉÆõÀ
ªÀÄÄPÀÛUÉƽ¹ £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ MzÀV¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV «£ÀæªÀĪÁV
«£ÀAw¹PÉƼÀÄîwÛzÉÝãÉ.
¸ÀܼÀ: ¥ÀÄvÀÆÛgÀÄ Ewà vÀªÀÄä «zsÉÃAiÀÄ,
¢£ÁAPÀ:16-04-2015"
- 11 -
CRL.RP No. 879 of 2017
14. To substantiate his case, the accused has adduced
the evidence of DW1-Suresh, who is a mechanic who has
repaired the jeep and marked two documents as per Exhibits
D1 and D2. DW1-Suresh has deposed in his evidence that on
examination of Jeep, mudguard of the jeep was broken and the
steering system was completely damaged. He has deposed
that prior to accident, he has inspected the offending jeep and
the same was in good condition. But after the accident, he
found break pipe and steering pipes were broken. Further, he
has deposed that if the steering pipe and its worm is cut, the
driver cannot control the moving vehicle. He has deposed that
he can state as to same out of his experience. He has also
issued the receipt as per exhibit D2 in respect of the repair of
the Jeep.
15. A perusal of the report of Inspector of Motor Vehicles
which is marked through Investigating officer as per Exhibit
P33, reveals that the Jeep was examined by the Inspector of
Motor Vehicles upon requisition made by the Circle Inspector on
22nd May 2008. He has inspected the vehicle on 4th June 2008
at 11.00 am, and noticed the following damages:
"1. Front left side mudguard damaged;
- 12 -
CRL.RP No. 879 of 2017
2. Front left side bonnet damaged;
3. Steering system damaged;
4. Top portion completely damaged;
5. Back side body damaged;
6. Seats damaged;
7. platform of body damaged;
8. Rear indicators damaged;
9. both side mirror damaged."
16. Exhibit P33 reveals that the steering system of the
jeep was damaged, but the Inspector of motor vehicles has not
observed as to the condition of steering pipe. In Exhibit P2-
panchanama, it is stated that the top of the jeep was entangled
to the tree to which it was hit, the left side mudguard was
broken, bonnet, the left side headlight and body, right side
body, hangers, seat, dashboard, were all damaged. The photos
of the damaged jeep Exhibits-P3 to P6 with negative Exhibit
P3(a), also reveal as to the damages caused to the jeep due to
accident. Though the report of Inspector of Motor Vehicles
report reveals that steering system was damaged, the Inspector
of motor vehicles has given in his opinion that the accident is
not due to mechanical defect. In this case, Exhibit P33 is
crucial document to prove as to whether the accident was due
to mechanical defect or not? Had the Inspector of Motor
Vehicles, who is an expert in inspecting the motor vehicles, is
- 13 -
CRL.RP No. 879 of 2017
examined before the Court, truth would have come out as to
whether the accident is due to mechanical defect of steering
wheel or not. The prosecution has not examined the Inspector
of Motor Vehicles. This document is got marked through PW14,
who has not deposed as to the contents of Exhibit P33 report of
Motor Vehicle. The written statement submitted by the
accused, the evidence of DW1, the contents of exhibit P2-spot
mahazar, and the Motor vehicle report Exhibit-P33, so also,
non-examination of Inspector of motor vehicles, reveal that the
accident might have caused due to mechanical defect.
17. With regard to negligent act on the part of the
accused is concerned, in Exhibit P1-complaint, it is stated that
the Jeep driver accused-Rajesh, drove the jeep in a high speed
and rash and negligent manner and hence he lost control over
the vehicle and dashed to the tree on the left side of the road
and caused accident. The contents of Exhibit P1 does not speak
about the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused.
18. PW1-Rajappa Gowda, who has lodged complaint has
also not whispered anything as to the rash and negligent act on
the part of the accused. However, for the first time, he has
deposed in his evidence that the jeep was proceeding in a
- 14 -
CRL.RP No. 879 of 2017
zigzag manner which is not stated in the complaint-Exhibit P1.
Other witnesses, PW2-Somnath Gowda, PW3-Satish Gowda,
PW4-Kamalaksha @ Somashekara, PW5 Kamalaksha Gowda,
have also not whispered anything as to the rash and negligent
act on the part of the accused. On the contrary, during the
cross-examination of all these witnesses, they have clearly
admitted that there is curve in the place of accident.
19. PW1 has further stated that only after five minutes
after the occurrence of accident, he came to the spot and
witnessed the incident.
20. PW4 has also admitted in his evidence that after five
minutes of the accident, they have reached the spot and by that
time, number of persons had already gathered there and
further he has admitted that he cannot say as to how the
accident occurred and what was the real cause for the accident.
21. PW5 has also deposed in his evidence that when he
visited the spot number of persons had already gathered there.
22. PW6-Rohit Kumar, said to be the eye-witness to the
incident, has not supported the case of prosecution. He has
denied the statement said to have been recorded by the
- 15 -
CRL.RP No. 879 of 2017
investigating officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, which is marked as Exhibit P7.
23. The Spot mahazar witness PW7-Satish, has also
clearly admitted that there was a curve near the place of
accident. Though there is a curve near the place of accident,
the Investigating officer has not stated anything in Exhibit-P2
mahazar. However, the curve is shown in Exhibit P32-Sketch.
Exhibit P32 reveals that there is a curve in the place of
accident. When there is a curve in the place of accident, it is
not possible to the inmates of the jeep that was proceeding
ahead of the offending vehicle. All these witnesses have clearly
deposed that they cannot say the exact speed of the jeep. In
addition to that, the owner of the vehicle PW12 has deposed
that he came to know that the accident occurred due to
mechanical defect of the Jeep, i.e. cut of steering worm. The
entire evidence will create reasonable doubt as to the rash and
negligent act on the part of the accused. It is evident from
report of motor vehicles and other evidence that the accident
occurred due to mechanical defect. Therefore, in view of
principle of criminal jurisprudence, the benefit of doubt goes to
the accused. For the aforestated reasons, the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court
- 16 -
CRL.RP No. 879 of 2017
which is confirmed by the appellate Court warrants interference
by this Court. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the
affirmative.
Regarding point No.2:
For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed;
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order on
sentence dated 28th October, 2015 passed by
the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, which is confirmed
by Judgment dated 26th September 2016,
passed in Criminal Appeal No.5003 of 2016 by
the V Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, sitting at Puttur
are set aside;
(iii) Accused/Revision Petitioner is acquitted of the
offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and
- 17 -
304A of IPC and Section 3 read with Section
181 of the Motor Vehicles Act;
(v) Fine amount, if any, deposited by the
accused/revision petitioner, be refunded to
him.
(vi) Registry to send the Trial Court Records along
with copy of this judgment to the concerned
court forthwith.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
