Karnataka High Court
Mallesh S/O Narasappa Sheshagiri vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5707
CRL.RP No. 200013 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200013 OF 2021
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MALLESH S/O NARASAPPA SHESHAGIRI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC BUS DRIVER,
R/O. H.NO. 12-425, SIDDARTH NAGAR,
GOLA (K) ROAD,
SHAHABAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K. RAVINDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by THROUGH KAMALAPUR POLICE STATION,
SUMITRA
SHERIGAR REP. BY ADDL. SPP,
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF KALABURAGI BENCH- 585 103.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI, IN CRL. APPEAL
NO.32/2020, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN
C.C.NO.4285/2013 BY LEARNED I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, KALABURAGI, THEREBY TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER
FROM ALL THE CHARGES.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5707
CRL.RP No. 200013 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA)
The accused in C.C. No.4285/2013 on the file of the
learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C.,
Kalaburagi, [for short 'Trial Court'] is impugning the
judgment dated 07.03.2020 convicting the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and
304A of Indian Penal Code [for short 'IPC'] and under
Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act [for short 'M.V. Act'],
which was confirmed in Crl.A. No.32/2020 on the file of
the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Kalaburagi, [for short 'First Appellate Court'], however, the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by
the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections
338 of IPC was set aside by the First Appellate Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5707
HC-KAR
2. Facts of the case in brief are that, PW1 - the
injured eyewitness filed the first information with
Kamalapur Police Station against accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC
and under Section 187 of M.V. Act. It was the contention
of the prosecution that, the accused being the driver of the
KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-32/F-1558 drove
the same on Hyderabad to Kalaburagi road in rash and
negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and
dashed the same to the pedestrians, who were proceeding
by the side of the road, as result of which, four persons
have died and several injured. Even after causing the
accident, accused ran away from the spot without
informing this fact to the Police or provided any medical
assistance. Thereby, he has committed the offence as
stated above.
3. On the basis of the FIR, investigation was
undertaken and final report came to be filed against the
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5707
HC-KAR
337, 338 and 304A of IPC and Section 187 of MV Act.
Accused appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not
guilty. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and got
marked Exs.P1 to P28 in support of its contention. The
accused denied all the incriminating materials available on
record in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but
has not led any evidence in support of his defence.
4. The Trial Court after taking into consideration
all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that,
the prosecution is successful in proving guilt of the
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279,
337, 338 and 304A of IPC and under Section 187 of M.V.
Act. Accordingly, convicted the accused and sentenced
him vide judgment dated 07.03.2020.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused had
preferred Crl.A. No.32/2020. The First Appellate Court on
re-appreciation of the materials on record, confirmed the
judgment of conviction for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC and Section 187 of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5707
HC-KAR
M.V. Act, however, set aside the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence for the offence punishable under
Section 338 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by
the Trial Court, the accused is before this Court.
6. Heard Sri K. Ravindra, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner and Sri Gopalkrishna B. Yadav, learned
High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -
State. Perused the materials on record.
7. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsels for both the parties, the point that would
arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed
by the Trial Court, which was confirmed
by the First Appellate Court suffers from
infirmities and calls for interference by
this Court?"
My answer to the above point is 'Partly in the
Affirmative' for the following:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5707
HC-KAR
REASONS
8. The specific contention taken by the
prosecution is that, the accused is the driver of the
offending bus i.e., KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-
32/F-1538. This fact is not in dispute. The prosecution
got marked Ex.P19, which is not disputed by the accused.
9. It is the specific contention of the prosecution
that, the bus driven by the accused caused the road traffic
accident, in which four pedestrians have died and several
others were injured. This fact is also not in dispute. The
prosecution got marked Exs.P4 to P7, the inquest
mahazars, post mortem reports as per Exs.P8 to P11 and
Wound Certificates as per Ex.P12 to P15 and P22. The
prosecution has also placed reliance on the I.M.V. Report
as per Ex.P21, according to which, there was no
mechanical defect, which resulted in road traffic accident.
Therefore, it is the contention of the prosecution that, it
was the accused, who was driving the bus in question in a
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5707
HC-KAR
rash and negligent manner, which resulted in road traffic
accident, taking life of the four pedestrians and causing
injuries to several other persons.
10. PW1 lodged the first information as per Ex.P1.
PWs.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are the eyewitnesses.
PWs.1, 2, 3 are the injured eyewitnesses. It is pertinent
to note that, all these eyewitnesses are the rustic villagers
and they have given their evidence in their own way
stating that, on the date of the accident at 3.30 a.m.,
early morning, they were proceeding by the side of the
road. The KSRTC bus came from the back side without
blowing horn and ran over the pedestrians. In that
regard, PW.1 - informant has filed the complaint as per
Ex.P1. During cross-examination, even though it was
suggested to the witness that, she has not seen the
accused as the driver of the offending vehicle, witness
states that, he was the driver and now he is before the
Court. Witness also states that, at the time of the
incident, about 40 persons in a group were proceeding by
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5707
HC-KAR
the side of the road. Even though, the said witness was
cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited from
her to disbelieve her version.
11. The other injured eyewitnesses and the
eyewitnesses also depose in similar lines, stating that in a
group they were proceeding by the side of the road at
3.30 a.m. The accused being the driver of the KSRTC Bus
without blowing the horn came from backside and ran over
them, which resulted in the death of four persons and
causing injuries to several others.
12. It is pertinent to note that, even though these
witnesses were cross-examined by the learned counsel for
the accused at length, no specific defence was taken by
the accused suggesting the reason for the road traffic
accident. It is pertinent to note that, none of the
documents produced by the prosecution is disputed by the
accused. The statement of the accused under Section 313
of Cr.P.C., was recorded by the Trial Court, where the
accused has not offered any explanation except denying
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5707
HC-KAR
the incriminating materials available on record. From the
materials on record, it is clear that, the accused was the
driver of the offending KSRTC Bus and he caused the road
traffic accident resulting in four deaths and five injured,
who were proceeding in group by the side of the road.
The accused has not explained as to how and why the
accident had occurred.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that none of the eyewitnesses have spoken about the rash
and negligent driving of the bus by the accused. I do not
find any support for the contention taken by the petitioner
as the witnesses have stated that the accused being the
driver of the bus, came from backside, without blowing the
horn and ran over the group of the persons, itself speaks
about the rashness and negligence on the part of the
accused in driving the bus. The principles of res-ipsa
loquitur aptly applies to the facts of the case. The accused
has not taken the responsibility of explaining as to how the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5707
HC-KAR
accident had occurred, if at all he was not either rash or
negligent in driving the bus.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner places
reliance on the decision of Apex Court in Syed Akbar vs
State of Karnataka1 to contend that, the principles of
res-ipsa loquitur is not applicable to the facts of the
present case. In the said case the facts are entirely
different as the accused was the driver of the bus driving
the same on a public road. There was deep ditch on either
side of the road. A mother, accompanied her young
daughter aged 4 years were proceeding on the road. The
mother had already crossed the road and she instructed
her daughter, aged 4 years to go back to the house. It is
the evidence on record that, the young girl was already
half way through for crossing the road and she was in a
dilemma whether to cross the road or to go back, as
instructed by her mother. The Apex Court considered the
principles of res-ipsa loquitur and held that, two fold
1979 AIR 1848
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5707
HC-KAR
requirements are required to be satisfied for application of
the maxim viz., the first one is that the res must not only
speak about the negligence, but it should pin it on the
accused.
15. In the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the
accused has given his explanation in his statement under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C., as to how the incident had
occurred. He stated that, he was driving the vehicle
slowly, and the child came on the road from the left side,
all of a sudden to cross it; to avoid the collusion with the
child, he immediately turned the vehicle towards right side
of the road, but he failed to save the child. The defence
plea taken by the accused in the said case was that, he
could not avoid the accident inspite of being very careful.
The Apex Court has taken into consideration the evidence
led by the prosecution in the light of the defence taken by
the accused and came to the conclusion that, the mother
was insisting the child not to follow her, but to return to
home. Therefore, the child which came on the road with
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5707
HC-KAR
an intention to cross the road, stopped in between for a
moment and probably went ahead to cross the road. In
the meantime, the accused therein being the driver of the
offending bus, in order to avoid the child, took the bus on
the other side of the road, but he could not avoid hitting
the child. The Apex Court has also taken into
consideration the fact that, there was a greater risk of
harming the passengers in the bus, as there were deep
ditches on either side of the road. Considering all these
facts and circumstances, the Apex Court held that the
principle of res-ipsa loquitur cannot be made applicable to
the facts of the said case.
16. But in the present case, no such defence was
taken by the accused explaining as to how and why the
accident had occurred. It is not his contention that, he
had taken care to avoid the accident. Under such
circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the prosecution is
successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5707
HC-KAR
offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A)
of IPC and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act.
17. When the accused is found guilty for the offence
punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC, the
offence under Section 279 of IPC being the minor offence,
merges with the major offence under Section 304A of IPC,
in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Gurubasavaraj @ Bennishettappa vs. State of
Karnataka2. In view of the same, I am of the opinion
that the petitioner is not liable for sentence for the offence
punishable under Section 279 of IPC separately. Such
order of sentence is liable to be set aside.
18. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279,
337, 338, 304-A of IPC and under Section 187 of M.V. Act.
The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the
materials on record, confirmed the judgment of conviction
for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and
(2012) 8 SCC 734
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5707
HC-KAR
304A of IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act, however, it set
aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence for
the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC. Hence, I
do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
Accordingly, I answer the above point 'partly in the
affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed
in part.
(ii) The judgment of conviction passed in C.C.
No.4285/2013 on the file of the learned I
Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi,
which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal
No.32/2020 on the file of the learned I
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Kalaburagi, vide judgment dated
30.12.2020 for the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC and
under Section 187 of M.V.Act, is hereby
confirmed.
(iii) The order of sentence passed by the Trial
Court for the offences punishable under
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5707
HC-KAR
Sections 337, 304(A) of IPC and 187 of
M.V.Act, is also confirmed.
(iv) The order of sentence passed by the Trial
Court for the offence punishable under
Section 279 of IPC is hereby set aside.
(v) Fine amount, if any, deposited for the
above said offence is ordered to be
refunded to the petitioner on due
identification.
Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court
records along with copy of this order for information and
needful action.
Sd/-
(M.G. UMA)
JUDGE
SBS, MSR
CT:PK
