Karnataka High Court
Mr.Syed Ejaz Pasha vs State Of Karnataka on 20 May, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18290
CRL.RP No. 1037 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MAY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1037 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
MR.SYED EJAZ PASHA
S/O MR MALAN SAB
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT BELLALLI YELAHANKA POST
BANGALORE - 560 064.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K M SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU
SREEDHARAN BANGALORE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUSHMA LAKSHMI
Location: High Court of
HIGH COURT BUILDING
Karnataka BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P. PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
SEANTENCE DATED 07.09.2017 PASSED BY THE LXI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
(CCH-62) IN CRL.A.NO.641/2012 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
DATED 20.09.2012 IN C.C.NO.4076/2009 (OLD
C.C.NO.2300/2017) PASSED BY THE METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (TRAFFIC COURT-III), BANGALORE AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 27.02.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18290
CRL.RP No. 1037 of 2017
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CAV ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction and order on sentence
dated 20.09.2012 in C.C.No.4076/2009 (Old C.C
No.2300/2007) passed by the Metropolitan
Magistrate, Traffic Court - III at Bengaluru and the
judgment and order dated 07.09.2017 passed in
Crl.A.No.641/2012 on the file of LXI Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH - 62)
seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded
by the Courts below.
2. The ranks of the parties henceforth will be
considered as per their rankings before the Trial
Court for convenience.
The factual matrix of the case is as under:
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.04.2008 at
about 9.00 a.m., the accused being a rider of the
motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-05-EY-9248
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18290
CRL.RP No. 1037 of 2017
drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed to the pedestrian U.Ganesh who was crossing
the road from east to west. Due to the impact, the
pillion rider of the motorcycle, viz., Kumari Ayesha
Banu sustained grievous injuries and the pedestrian
also had sustained grievous injuries and succumbed
to the said injuries. Based on the complaint, the
respondent - police have registered a case and
conducted the investigation and submitted the
charge sheet.
4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution
examined, in all, 10 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 10 and
got marked 12 documents as Exs.P.1 to P12. The
Trial Court after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence on record, convicted the
accused for the offences punishable under Sections
279, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (for
short 'IPC'). On appeal being filed, the same was
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:18290
CRL.RP No. 1037 of 2017
confirmed by the Appellate Court. Hence, this
revision petition.
5. Heard Sri.K.M.Somashekar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent -State.
6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that both the Courts have committed error
in recording the conviction for the offences stated
supra even though the witnesses have not stated
anything about the rash and negligent driving of the
vehicle by the petitioner.
7. It is further submitted that the pedestrian committed
negligence while crossing the road. The topography
itself establishes that the accused has not committed
any offence. The accused was not a rider of the
motorcycle and the same has not been considered by
the Trial Court. The Trial Court recorded the
evidence perversely without proper appreciation,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:18290
CRL.RP No. 1037 of 2017
consequently, the impugned judgment was passed
and the same is required to be set aside. Making
such submissions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner prays to allow the petition.
8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader justified the concurrent findings passed by
the Courts below and prays to reject the petition.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the findings of the Courts
below, it is necessary to have a cursory look upon
the evidence of all the witnesses.
10. P.W.1 is the relative of the deceased and he has not
witnessed the accident. However, in the cross-
examination, he had stated that the accused was
driving the vehicle on the date of the accident.
11. P.W.2 has stated in his evidence that the motorcycle
was being driven by the accused viz., Sayed Ejaz
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:18290
CRL.RP No. 1037 of 2017
Pasha and he further stated that the accused was
riding the motorcycle with high speed.
12. P.W.3 is the relative of the deceased. Though he is
stated to be the eyewitness to the incident, he
admitted in the cross-examination that he was in his
shop at the time of the accident.
13. P.W.4 is stated to be an independent witness. He
deposed in his evidence that the accused was driving
the said vehicle with high speed.
14. P.W.5 was working as a Doctor at North Side
Hospital, Sahakara Nagar, Bengaluru, stated to have
treated the pillion rider viz., Ayesha.
15. These are all the relevant witnesses and also
considered as material witnesses to the accident.
Admittedly, P.W.1 and 3 are the relatives of the
deceased. Both have admitted that the deceased
after having crossed the grill, he was crossing the
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:18290
CRL.RP No. 1037 of 2017
road. It is also admitted that it was not proper to
cross the road and there was no zebra crossing.
16. P.W.2 being an independent witness, even though he
has stated that he witnessed the accident, his
evidence has not given effect for the reason that his
evidence is not reliable.
17. P.W.4 also stated to be the independent witness. He
stated that the accused was driving the vehicle with
high speed and also admitted that the deceased was
crossing the road where it was not meant for
crossing.
18. Having read the evidence of all these witnesses, it is
needless to say that the deceased was crossing the
road negligently without following the procedure.
Such being the fact, mere driving the vehicle by the
rider of the motorcycle with high speed cannot be
construed as rash and negligent driving. Therefore,
both the Courts have committed error in applying the
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:18290
CRL.RP No. 1037 of 2017
principle of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Karnataka vs. Satish1 held that merely riding the
motorcycle with high speed cannot be construed as
rash and negligent driving. In the present case, none
of the witnesses have spoken about the rash and
negligent riding of the motorcycle by the accused. In
the absence of evidence in respect of the rash and
negligent act of the rider of the motorcycle, it cannot
be held that the accused is found guilty of the
offence for the rash and negligent act. Therefore, the
conviction rendered by the Courts below is liable to
be set aside.
20. It is needless to say that though the Revisional Court
has not confirmed the appreciation of the facts of the
case. however, in a case where the Courts have
approached erroneously, not only in appreciation of
1
(1998) 8 SCC 493
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:18290
CRL.RP No. 1037 of 2017
the evidence but also applying the proper law, under
such circumstances, it is always desirable to interfere
with the said concurrent findings in order to secure
the ends of justice.
21. 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 20.09.2012 passed in
C.C.No.4076/2009 (Old C.C No.2300/2007)
passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic
Court - III at Bengaluru and the judgment
and order dated 07.09.2017 passed in
Crl.A.No.641/2012 by LXI Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH -
62), are set aside.
iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences
under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18290
iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
SD/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
JS
