Karnataka High Court
Satish Kumar M E vs State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12636
CRL.RP No. 953 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 953 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SATISH KUMAR M. E.
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
S/O ESHWARAPPA,
R/O. MARACHARAHALLI VILLAGE,
THEETHA POST, KOLALA HOBLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VENKATESH S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KYATHASANDRA POLICE,
REPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed HIGH COURT BUILDING,
by RENUKA AT BANGALORE - 560001.
Location:
HIGH COURT ...RESPONDENT
OF (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
TUMKURU IN C.C.NO.2389/2009 DATED 08.09.2016 FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 279, 304(A) OF IPC AND U/S 134(b) OF IMV
ACT AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION CONFIMED BY THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKURU IN CRL.A.NO.28/2016 DATED
06.07.2017 AND ALLOW THE CRL.RP BY ACQUITTING THE
PETITIONER FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12636
CRL.RP No. 953 of 2017
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.02.2025 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CAV ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner,
being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order
on sentence dated 08.09.2016 in C.C.No.2389/2009 on
the file of Principal Civil Judge and 1stJ.M.F.C., Tumakuru
and its confirmation judgment and order dated
06.07.2017 in Crl.A.No.28/2016 on the file of VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru,
seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by
the Courts below.
2. The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court will be
considered henceforth for convenience.
Brief facts of the case:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.06.2009 at
about 5.15 p.m., the petitioner being the driver of the
Tractor bearing its registration No.KA-06-T-4254 and
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:12636
CRL.RP No. 953 of 2017
Trailer No.4255 drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed the Tractor against one Manjamma
who was going on the left side of the road.
Consequently, she sustained injuries and died on the
spot. Based on the complaint, the jurisdictional police
have registered a case in Crime No.167/2009 for the
offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC r/w 134(b)
of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution
examined 12 witnesses as PWs.1 to 12 and got marked
13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13. The Trial Court and
Appellate Court concurrently held that the petitioner is
guilty of the offences under the above said provisions and
rendered the conviction. Hence, this revision petition.
5. Heard Sri.Venkatesh.S, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the concurrent findings of the Courts below
are contrary and opposed to the law and facts, therefore,
the said findings are required to be set aside.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:12636
CRL.RP No. 953 of 2017
7. It is further submitted that both the Courts have failed to
appreciate the evidence properly with proper perspective.
Though the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 4 and 5 would disclose
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
act of the driver of the said Tractor, the facts remains
that, PWs.1 and 2 were not present at the scene of
occurrence. They have been fabricated and created for
the purpose of the case. There are some contradictions
in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in respect of having
chased the Tractor and apprehended the accused.
8. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW.7 would
indicate that PWs.1 and 2 came to the spot after 15
minutes of the incident. When the evidence of PW.7 is
considered as true, the fact remains that, PWs.1 and 2
were not present at the spot. Therefore, their evidence as
eyewitnesses to the incident creates doubt, therefore, it is
necessary to interfere in the findings of the Courts below.
Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner prays to allow the petition.
9. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader
for the respondent - State vehemently opposed the said
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:12636
CRL.RP No. 953 of 2017
submissions and he further submitted that both the
Courts have arrived at a conclusion based on the
evidence of the injured witnesses and also eyewitnesses.
Nothing is there to show that the accused was not driving
the said vehicle as on the date of the incident. Therefore,
there is no either infirmity or illegality in the findings of
the Courts below in recording the conviction. Hence,
interference with the said findings need not be necessary.
Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Making
such submissions, the learned High Court Government
Pleader prays to dismiss the petition.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below
in recording the conviction, it is necessary to have a
cursory look upon the evidence of all the witnesses.
11. PW.1 deposed that as on the date of the said accident, he
had been to work at the brick factory and after finishing
the said work, he was coming to his home by walk around
5.15 p.m. All the workers who were working in the said
brick factory were proceeding in the said road. The
Tractor which was being driven by the accused came from
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:12636
CRL.RP No. 953 of 2017
Kyathasandra side dashed Narsamma, Arasamma and
Manjulamma. After the accident, the accused did not
stop the vehicle and he went away by driving the said
vehicle. He further stated that himself and PW.2 chased
the said Tractor in an auto and brought back the Tractor
to the spot. However, the driver of the Tractor ran away
from the spot. He identified the driver of the Tractor.
Further, he stated that the said accident had occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the accused.
However, in the cross-examination, he admitted that he
chased the Tractor in the scooter.
12. Similarly, PW.2 stated in his evidence that he was
proceeding from Kyathasandra towards Belgumba Road
around 5.15 p.m., he stated to have witnessed the
accident. As he was proceeding in his scooter, he took
PW.1 along with him and chased the Tractor after the
accident and brought the Tractor to the spot of accident.
13. On reading of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, nowhere, it is
mentioned the registration number of the vehicle which
was being driven by PW.2. The Investigating Officer did
not collect the information regarding the vehicle which
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:12636
CRL.RP No. 953 of 2017
was driven by PW.2. When the evidence of PW.1 is
contrary to the evidence of PW.2, the presence of these
witnesses at the spot appears to be doubtful. Therefore,
their evidence in respect of rash and negligent act of the
driver and identity of the driver required to be
disbelieved.
14. Similarly, P.W.3 though she said to be present at the
spot, she did not identify the driver of the vehicle.
15. PW.5 Arasamma was also present at the spot. She is the
mother of the deceased Manjamma. She deposed in her
evidence that soon after the incident, she became
unconscious and she did not identify the driver of the said
vehicle. When analyzing the evidence of PWs.3 and 5,
PW.3 says that when she went to the spot, PW.5 was not
present at the spot. However, PW.5 says that she was
present and she became unconscious.
16. PW.6 was grazing the cattle in the nearby land where the
accident had taken place. He identified the driver of the
Tractor in the examination-in-chief. However, in the
cross-examination, there is inconsistencies about the said
identity.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:12636
CRL.RP No. 953 of 2017
17. PW.7 deposed in his evidence that he was standing near
Siddalinga Cross Road and stated to have witnessed the
accident. According to him, PWs.1 and 2 were coming in
the Hero Honda motorcycle. He stated to have seen the
driver of the vehicle. However, he was not present at the
spot when the accident had taken place. Therefore, the
evidence of this witness in respect of rash and negligent
act of the driver is not helpful to the case of the
prosecution. Even though the prosecution had examined
many witnesses to show that the driver of the said
Tractor drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner and caused accident, the fact remains that, there
are some inconsistencies in the evidence of these
witnesses in respect of rash and negligent act and also
the identification of the accused. When the evidence of
all the witnesses is inconsistent to each other in respect
of the accident and also identity of the accused, the
benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused.
As the Courts below did not extend such benefit to the
accused, interference with findings of the Courts below is
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:12636
CRL.RP No. 953 of 2017
justified and the findings of the Courts below in rendering
the conviction are liable to be set aside.
18. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 08.09.2016 passed in
C.C.No.2389/2009 by the Principal Civil
Judge and 1st J.M.F.C., Tumakuru and the
judgment and order dated 06.07.2017
passed in Crl.A.No.28/2016 by the VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tumakuru are set aside.
(iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of
IPC r/w 134(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
