Karnataka High Court
Moidin vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 May, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18289
CRL.RP No. 636 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. 636 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
MOIDIN
S/O LATE K MOHAMMAD
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O MOIDIN MANZIL
BAJAL POST, PAKKALADKA
MANGALURU DISTRICT - 575 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. TALHA ISMAIL BENGRE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MOHAMMED ZAMEER K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by BY POLICE CIRCLE INSPECTOR
SREEDHARAN BANGALORE MANGALURU RURAL POLICE STATION
SUSHMA LAKSHMI
Location: High Court of MANGALURU D.K. - 575 001.
Karnataka
(REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU - 560 001)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE DATED 16.05.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL.
SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.223/2015
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 28.08.2015 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C. (III
COURT), MANGALORE, D.K. IN C.C.NO.1628/2015 AND ETC.,.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 25.02.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18289
CRL.RP No. 636 of 2017
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CAV ORDER
1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction and order on sentence dated 28.08.2015 in
C.C.No.1628/2011 passed by the JMFC (III Court),
Mangaluru, D.K., and the judgment and order dated
16.05.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.223/2015 on the file of
the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada,
Mangaluru seeking to set aside the judgments and orders
passed 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 are as under:
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.10.2010, at
about 8.15 am, the accused being a driver of Sneha
Public School bus bearing its No.KA19-19-B-757, drove
the same from Chembugudde towards Thokkottu on a
public road in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to
the compound wall on the right side of the road, thereby,
two children have sustained simple injuries and other two
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18289
CRL.RP No. 636 of 2017
persons have sustained grievous injuries. In the said
accident, one Lolakshi @ Aishwarya sustained severe
injures and succumbed to the said injuries in the hospital.
CW1 lodged a complaint before the respondent police.
Based on the said complaint, the respondent police
registered a case in Cr.No.279/2010 against the accused.
After conducting investigation, the jurisdictional police
submitted the charge sheet.
4. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined 12
witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked 23 documents
as Exs.P.1 to 23(a). The Trial Court recorded the
convictions for the offences punishable under Sections
279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. The appellate Court
allowed the appeal in part.
5. Heard Sri.Talha Ismail Bengare and Sri. Mohammed
Zameer K, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondent -State.
6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that both the courts have committed error in
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:18289
CRL.RP No. 636 of 2017
recording the conviction for the offences even though the
witnesses have not stated anything about the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle.
7. It is further submitted that the evidence of interested
witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 to 3, 5 and 6 had to be considered
thoroughly with legal scrutiny. The Trial Court ignored in
considering the legal infirmities and uncorroborated
versions of the P.W.9 with the evidence of P.W.2 in
respect of the documents viz., Exs.P.23 and P7.
Consequently the impugned judgments are passed which
are 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 and prays to reject the
petition.
9. Having heard the 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.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:18289
CRL.RP No. 636 of 2017
10. P.W.1 is a complainant and also an injured. She deposed
that due to the accident she sustained injuries and she
was shifted to the hospital for treatment. The police
recorded her statement in the hospital as per Ex.P.1. She
supported the case of the prosecution.
11. P.W.2 is the witness to the spot mahazar which is marked
as Ex.P.7 and also an eyewitness to the incident. He
identified the accused both at the spot of accident as well
as in the Court. There is nothing to discredit in his
evidence.
12. P.W.3 is a minor and injured witness. The child supported
the case in respect of the accident occurred.
13. P.W.4 is a witness to the Ex.P.8 and he supported the
case. He is stated in his evidence that the bus was being
driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner.
Consequently, the accident had occurred.
14. P.W.5 is an independent witness stated about the
accident, he identified the accused.
15. P.W.6 was running a shop in the area where the accident
had occurred. He did not identify the driver of the bus.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:18289
CRL.RP No. 636 of 2017
16. P.W.7 was working as a Head Master of Sneha Public
School. She did not state about the driver of the bus.
17. P.W.8 is a Head Constable of the respondent police. He
is stated to have visited the Nethaji Hospital and recorded
the statement of injured. Thereafter, registered a FIR
against the accused and handed over the case to the PSI
for further investigation.
18. P.W.9 is a witness to the Ex.P.7. He supported the case
of the prosecution.
19. P.W.10 was working as a Circle Inspector conducted
investigation and submitted the charge sheet.
20. These are all the material witnesses and their evidence
has to be considered for the purpose of arriving at a
conclusion as to whether the Courts below have rightly
appreciated their evidence and applied the proper law or
not. No doubt, P.Ws.1 and 3 are the injured witnesses
supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.2 though
appears to be witness to Ex.P.7-mahazar, the facts
remain that he is an eyewitness to the incident. He also
identified the accused was driving the vehicle.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:18289
CRL.RP No. 636 of 2017
21. P.W.7 being a Head Mistress of the School, she did not
support the case of the prosecution. However, the
evidence of P.W.3 has to be considered in respect of the
incident which had occurred on that day. According to
P.W.3, the deceased and himself were going to the school
by walking. The offending bus dashed both of them.
Consequently, he was thrown into the gutter and another
died at the spot. Some of the witnesses have identified
the accused that, he was driving the vehicle. However,
the school authority has denied that the accused was
driving the said vehicle on the date of accident. Such
being the fact, the Courts below have extended the
benefit of doubt to the accused. In other words, if the two
views are possible, one which is favorable to the accused
has to be given to him as benefit.
22. As both the Courts have committed error in extending the
benefit of doubt to the accused, interference with the said
findings of the Court below is justified. Therefore, the
findings of the Courts below are liable to be set aside.
23. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to
pass the following:
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:18289
CRL.RP No. 636 of 2017
ORDER
i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
ii) The judgment of conviction and order on
sentence dated 28.08.2015 passed in
C.C.No.1628/2011 by the Court of J.M.F.C.
(III Court) Mangluru, D.K. and the judgment
and order dated 16.05.2017 passed in
Crl.A.No.223/2015 by the Court of the Prl.
Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru,
are set aside.
iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and
304-A of IPC.
iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
SD/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
JS/-
