Karnataka High Court
Sri B H Byregowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12631
CRL.RP No. 1447 of 2016
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. 1447 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI B. H. BYREGOWDA
S/O HOMBALEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT. BHOOGATHAHALLI VILLAGE,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-571124
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. M. SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
NARASIMHARAJA TRAFFIC POLICE STATION,
Digitally signed
MYSURU,
by RENUKA REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Location: HIGH COURT BUILDING,
HIGH COURT BANGALORE-560001
OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA (BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 17.10.2016 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.134/2016 MADE
BY THE III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENTS DATED 11.07.2016
PASSED IN C.C.NO.277/2012 MADE BY THE III ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
AT MYSURU AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12631
CRL.RP No. 1447 of 2016
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.02.2025 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 11.07.2016 in C.C.No.277/2012 on the
file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial
Magistrate at Mysore and its confirmation judgment and
order dated 17.10.2016 in Crl.A.No.134/2016 on the file
of the Court of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru has
filed this revision petition seeking to set aside the
concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below,
wherein the petitioner / accused was convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304(A) of
IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of
IMV Act.
2. The rank of the parties in the Trial Court will be
considered henceforth for convenience.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:12631
CRL.RP No. 1447 of 2016
Brief facts of the case:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 03.05.2008, early
in the morning the accused was driving his goods auto
bearing Reg.No.KA-11-4774 towards Mysore along with
some inmates in the backside of the said goods auto. At
about 7.00 am, when the goods auto reached ring road
junction on Bangalore and Mysore High Way, a Lorry
bearing Reg.No.KA-09-A-4049 came from Bannur Ring
road with high speed and hit the goods auto on its left
side in the middle of the goods auto and dashed the
goods auto. Consequently, the goods auto turned turtle
resulting in causing injuries to the inmates of the said
auto. Smt. Kempamma and Smt.Bettamma succumbed to
the said injuries. However, Smt.Masthamma survived
after taking treatment. The first informant-driver of the
goods auto escaped with minor injuries. Hence, he lodged
a complaint before the respondent police. After
conducting investigation, a charge sheet came to be
submitted against the petitioner for the offences stated
supra.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:12631
CRL.RP No. 1447 of 2016
4. To prove the case, prosecution examined five witnesses
as P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked 10 documents as Ex.P1 to
P10. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence on record recorded the conviction
for the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by the same,
the accused approached the Appellate Court against the
said judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming
the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
Hence, this Revision Petition.
5. Heard Sri.M.M.Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent.
6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner
that the concurrent findings of the Courts below are not
proper and contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore,
the same is liable to be set aside.
7. It is further submitted that the place of occurrence even
though is doubtful, the Trial Court has not considered the
evidence of P.W.6 and Ex.P4-spot mahazar properly. PW6
being the Investigating Officer has stated that the
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:12631
CRL.RP No. 1447 of 2016
accident had occurred behind K.R.Mills Mysore. However,
Ex.P4 mahazar would indicate that the accident took
place at ring road junction which is very for away from
K.R Mill.
8. It is further submitted that P.W.3 being an eye witness
deposed in his evidence that the damages occurred on
the right side of the auto. However, the report says the
damages are occurred on the left side of the auto. The
said inconsistency should have been considered by the
Trial Court. However, the same has not been considered
properly.
9. It is further submitted that none of the witnesses have
spoken about the rash and negligent act of the petitioner.
In the absence of the evidence regarding rash and
negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner,
conviction ought not to have been recorded. However,
both the Courts have committed error in recording the
conviction. Therefore, the same has to be set aside. As
such, he prays to allow the petition.
10. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader
for the respondent justified the concurrent findings and
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:12631
CRL.RP No. 1447 of 2016
further he submitted that PW.3 being a driver of the auto
and PW.4-Mastamma being an inmate of the said Auto
have supported the case of the prosecution. It is also
true that the accident occurred at the spot where the
mahazar was drawn. There might have been some
inconsistencies in the evidence of the eye witnesses.
However, that may not be the major contradictions.
Therefore, the findings of the Courts below in recording
the conviction is proper and relevant. Interference with
the said findings may not be proper. As such, he prays to
dismiss the petition.
11. After having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below
in recording the conviction, it is relevant to refer the
evidence of material witnesses, namely, PWs.3, 4 and
also some documentary evidence.
12. No doubt, the accident had occurred and two women who
were the inmates of the goods auto succumbed to the
injuries. The fact remains that, who identified the driver
of the lorry has to be looked into. The prosecution
examined several witnesses to substantiate the same.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:12631
CRL.RP No. 1447 of 2016
However, the owner of the lorry has not been examined.
Further, none of the witnesses have spoken about the
petitioner, who was driving the lorry. Even, PW.3 who
was the driver of the goods auto has not identified the
petitioner as a driver of the lorry. Such being the fact,
recording the conviction based on the surmises and
conjectures cannot be sustained. Therefore, I am of the
considered opinion that both the Courts have committed
error in recording the conviction. Hence, the said
conviction has to be set aside.
13. 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 on
sentence dated 11.07.2016 passed in
C.C.No.277/2012 by the Court of the III Addl.
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
at Mysore and the judgment and order dated
17.10.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.134/2016 by the
NC: 2025:KHC:12631
Court of the III Addl. Sessions Judge at Mysuru,
are set aside.
iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences
under Sections 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC and
Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of
IMV Act.
iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
JS
