Karnataka High Court
Mallayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408
CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200075 OF 2023
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MALLAYYA S/O SHANTAPPA HIREMATH
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O GUNAKI VILLAGE,
TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANGOLI NAGANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. S.P.P.
KALABURAGI BENCH,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH TRAFFIC P.S.,
Digitally signed VIJAYAPUR-586101.
by RENUKA ...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN., HCGP)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., UNDER
SECTION 438-BNSS(NEW) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.268/2020 BY IV-
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., VIJAYAPUR, DATED
04.06.2022 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.44/2022 DATED 10.04.2023
BY IV-ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA FOR
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279, 304(A), OF IPC AND
UNDER SECTION 187 OF M.V.ACT, AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408
CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned revision petition is by the accused
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned Magistrate in
C.C.No.268/2020 affirmed by Appellate Court in
Crl.A.No.44/2022 thereby sentencing the petitioner to pay
fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
279 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, in default of fine, to
undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days, to undergo a
simple imprisonment for a term of six months with fine of
Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable under Section 304-A of
IPC, in default of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for
a term of 02 months and fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence
punishable under Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act,
in default of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 30 days.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408
HC-KAR
2. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.10.2018
at about 2:30 p.m., on Vijapura-Indi Main Road, the
accused, being the driver of a KSRTC bus, while
proceeding towards Indi on a 30-feet wide road, allegedly
swerved the vehicle to the extreme right side of the road
and collided with a two-wheeler ridden by the deceased,
resulting in his instantaneous death. Based on the
information furnished by the first informant, a case was
registered in Crime No.178/2018 for the offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC and
Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. Upon
completion of investigation, the police laid the charge
sheet against the accused.
3. After supply of charge-sheet copies as required
under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the accused having pleaded not
guilty, was tried for the said offences. The prosecution
examined the complainant, who is the brother of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408
HC-KAR
deceased, and two purported eye-witnesses, P.W.3 and
P.W.4, along with other official witnesses. The accused
was thereafter examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
4. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of
the oral and documentary evidence, was of the view that
the testimonies of P.W.3 and P.W.4 were consistent and
free from material contradictions and that the
documentary evidence corroborated the oral version of the
prosecution witnesses. The Court further held that the
prosecution had clearly established that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
KSRTC bus by the accused. Consequently, by judgment
and order dated 04.06.2022, the learned Magistrate
convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo
simple imprisonment for six months for the offence
punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The said conviction
and sentence were affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge
in Criminal Appeal No.44/2022.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408
HC-KAR
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contends that both the Courts below have misappreciated
the evidence on record. It is argued that the road in
question is 30 feet wide, providing ample space for the
deceased to avoid the collision. Inviting attention to Ex.P-8
(photographs), it is submitted that the point of impact was
well within the petitioner's correct lane, thereby ruling out
rashness or negligence on his part. It is further contended
that the so-called eye-witnesses were not named in the
FIR, which seriously undermines their credibility. Learned
counsel would submit that the prosecution has failed to
establish the essential ingredients constituting rash and
negligent driving.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader (HCGP) supports the concurrent findings of both
Courts below. Placing reliance on the evidence of the two
eye-witnesses and the documents on record, the learned
HCGP submits that the judgment of conviction and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408
HC-KAR
sentence do not call for interference in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned HCGP at length and perused the
entire material on record.
8. Point for Determination:
Whether the concurrent findings of the Courts
below holding that the petitioner was driving the
KSRTC bus in a rash and negligent manner suffer
from any perversity, patent illegality, or
misappreciation of evidence warranting interference
under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C.?
9. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the
oral testimony of P.W.3 and P.W.4, claimed to be eye-
witnesses to the occurrence, and the documentary
evidence comprising the spot mahazar (Ex.P-6) and
photographs (Ex.P-8). A careful perusal of Ex.P-8 reveals
that the point of impact is located at approximately 24 feet
from one edge of the 30-foot-wide road, leaving a
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408
HC-KAR
remaining 6 feet of space on the opposite side for vehicles
approaching from the other direction. It is an admitted
position that the deceased was riding a motorcycle at the
relevant time.
10. Though Ex.P-8 indicates the point of impact as
being towards the right side of the KSRTC bus, it is of
significance that the photographs were taken from a
considerable distance. The images do not capture any
close-up view of the tyre impressions, blood marks, or skid
marks so as to pinpoint the precise locus of collision
between the bus and the two-wheeler. The prosecution's
own documents, including the sketch and mahazar, record
the width of the road as 30 feet. When viewed in
conjunction with the photographs, the materials
unmistakably disclose that even at the alleged point of
impact, a clear 6-foot width of road remained available to
the deceased. Hence, the prosecution's own exhibits
demonstrate that the deceased, while riding a motorcycle,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408
HC-KAR
had sufficient space to swerve or maneuver and thereby
avoid the collision.
11. Another crucial infirmity that substantially
weakens the prosecution case is that the FIR does not
name P.W.3 or P.W.4 as eye-witnesses. Their subsequent
introduction during trial, without any explanation for their
omission in the earliest version, casts serious doubt on
their presence at the scene of occurrence. The absence of
corroboration from any independent witness further
compounds this defect. Both the Courts below have failed
to appreciate this material inconsistency, which goes to
the root of the prosecution case.
12. There is also a total absence of reliable material
to establish that the petitioner was driving the bus at
excessive speed or in a manner indicating loss of control
or recklessness. The physical evidence contained in Ex.P-8
and the spot sketch clearly suggest that the bus was
proceeding on its left side of the road, consistent with
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408
HC-KAR
normal driving discipline. It is trite that for a conviction
under Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution must establish,
beyond reasonable doubt, that the act of the accused was
both rash and negligent, directly causing the death of
another. The mere fact that an accident has occurred does
not ipso facto render the driver criminally liable. The
prosecution must demonstrate culpable negligence or
rashness, which is conspicuously absent in the present
case.
13. Both the Courts below have placed undue and
uncritical reliance on the oral evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4,
without scientifically analyzing the documentary materials
forming part of the prosecution case. A meticulous scrutiny
of Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-8 unmistakably reveals that the bus
was substantially within its lane and that the deceased had
sufficient space, on a 30-foot-wide road, to maneuver his
motorcycle and avert the collision. The conclusion drawn
by the Courts below that the accident occurred solely due
to the petitioner's rash and negligent act is therefore
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408
HC-KAR
based on conjecture rather than concrete proof. The
omission to name the eye-witnesses in the FIR, coupled
with lack of corroboration and objective evidence of rash
driving, raises reasonable doubt which must necessarily
enure to the benefit of the accused.
14. The principle of "last opportunity to avoid
accident" also assumes relevance in cases of this nature.
If, as the evidence indicates, the deceased had a 6-foot
clear space available to him even at the alleged point of
impact and the road was straight and unobstructed, it
cannot be ignored that the deceased too had an
opportunity to regulate his speed or alter his course to
avoid the mishap. The photographs demonstrate a straight
stretch of road with adequate visibility. The failure of the
deceased to take evasive action further casts a shadow of
doubt on the prosecution's version as to the manner in
which the accident occurred.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408
HC-KAR
15. This Court is therefore of the considered view
that the prosecution has failed to establish rash or
negligent driving on the part of the petitioner beyond
reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by both the
Courts below are mechanical and not supported by any
credible or scientific analysis of the evidence on record.
Both Courts appear to have proceeded merely on the
premise that since the petitioner was admittedly driving
the bus involved in the accident, he must be responsible
for the death, an inference that is wholly unsustainable in
criminal jurisprudence.
16. The Magistrate, in convicting the petitioner, has
overlooked vital documentary evidence such as Ex.P-7 and
Ex.P-8, which clearly depict that the bus was not
recklessly driven. The Appellate Court, in turn, has failed
to perform its statutory duty of independently reassessing
the evidence, and has merely reiterated the findings of the
Trial Court without due scrutiny. Such perfunctory
affirmation renders the concurrent findings perverse,
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408
HC-KAR
unsustainable, and contrary to settled principles of
criminal law.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is
satisfied that the prosecution has not proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the petitioner's act amounted to
rash and negligent driving under Section 304-A IPC. The
conviction recorded by both Courts is based on misreading
of material evidence, omission to consider Ex.P-8 in its
proper perspective, and failure to appreciate the width and
nature of the road, which conclusively negate the
allegation of rashness. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. The revision petition is allowed.
ii. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 04.06.2022 passed by the
learned IV-Additional Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Vijayapura, in C.C.No.268/2020, as
affirmed by the learned IV-Additional District
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6408
HC-KAR
and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, in Criminal
Appeal No.44/2022, are hereby set aside.
iii. The petitioner/accused is acquitted of all the
charges.
iv. The bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.
v. The sureties, if any, are discharged.
vi. The fine amount, if deposited, shall be refunded
to the petitioner forthwith.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NB
CT:SI
