[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Revanasidda vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 March, 2026
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200020 OF 2024
(397(Cr.PC)/438 (BNSS))
BETWEEN:
REVANSIDDA S/O BASAVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
OCC: LABOUR
R/O KONDAMPALLI VILLAGE
TQ: CHINCHOLI, DIST: KALABURAGI-585201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI B. PATIL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SULEPETH P.S
REPRESENTED BY
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA KALABURAGI-585107
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI ...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
(BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP)
KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C,
438 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO A) ALLOW THE REVISION
PETITION THEREBY TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
FIRST APPELLATE COURT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.29/2012 BY
THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT KALABURAGI, SITTING AT SEDAM DATED
17.02.2021 AND THEREBY TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE TRIAL COURT DATED 06.02.2012 IN CC NO.82/2009
PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
AT CHINCHOLI, CONSEQUENTIALLY TO DISMISS THE CASE OF
THE PROSECUTION IN ENTIRETY.
3
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 12.03.2026, COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CAV ORDER
The appellant has preferred this revision petition
against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence
passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chincholi, in
C.C.No.82/2009 dated 06.02.2012, which was confirmed
by the IV Additional Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi, sitting
at Sedam, in Criminal Appeal No.29/2012 dated
17.02.2021.
2. The parties herein are referred to as per their
rank before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this revision petition
are that the Circle Inspector of Police, Sulepeth has
submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the
offence under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC
and Section 187 of the M.V.Act. It is alleged by the
prosecution that on 03.11.2008 at about 2-30 pm, the
complainant Chandrashekhar, one Sanjappa S/o Tippanna
took the grain grown in their land to Bidar in the Tractor
4
bearing No.KA-32-T-4778/79 belongs to one Sharanappa.
The accused Revanasidedappa was the driver of the said
vehicle. On the same night they were returning from Bidar
to their village, at about 5-00 a.m., on Sulepeth-Sedam
Road, near the land of one Sangappa Mastar the accused
Revanasiddappa drove it in a rash and negligent manner
i.e., in high speed, even though the inmates of the Tractor
and Trailer requested him to drive slowly. On account of
that the Tractor turtled on the left side of the road. On
account of that the complainant sustained injuries on right
foot, waist and thigh. The accused Revanasiddappa also
sustained fracture of bone. Another inmate Nanjappa died
on the spot since Trailer fell on him. The pedestrians i.e.,
Gulabchand, Sangamesh and Bhimrao Police Patil shifted
the injured to Government Hospital, Sulepeth.
4. At about 8-30 p.m., CW-16 Varadaraju the PS1
Sulepeth P.S. on receipt of MLC, visited the hospital and
recorded the complaint of CW-1 and registered the case in
crime No.79/2008. Then he conducted inquest
panchanama, cloths seizure panchanama and handed over
further investigation to CW-17 S.M. Inamdar, CPI
5
Sulepeth, who after completion of investigation, submitted
charge sheet.
5. After taking cognizance, the case was
registered as C.C.No.82/2019, and a summons was issued
to the accused. In pursuance of the summons, the accused
appeared before the trial Court and was enlarged on bail.
The substance of the plea was recorded. The accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 11
witnesses as PW.1 to 11, and documents were marked as
Exs.P1 to P11. On closure of the prosecution evidence, a
statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The
accused totally denied the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses however, he did not choose to lead any defense
evidence on his behalf.
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the
trial Court has acquitted the accused of the alleged offence
under Section 187 of the IPC convicted and passed the
sentence.
6
8. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction
and order on sentence, the appellant preferred an appeal
before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Kalaburagi, sitting at Sedam, in Criminal Appeal
No.29/2012. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the
Appellate Court on 17.02.2021. Hence, the revision
petitioner has preferred this revision petition.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned HCGP for respondent-State.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
revision petitioner submits that both Courts failed to
appreciate the oral and documentary evidence placed on
record in its right perspective and has failed to consider
the specific defence of the petitioner while dismissing the
appeal. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the First
Appellate Court requires to be set aside in limine. The
name of the petitioner was invoked in the alleged crime
based on the alleged further statement recorded on
24.11.2008, even though the accused was claimed to be
the driver of the tractor and trailer known to the
7
complainant and the other occupants of the vehicle.
Therefore, the name of the petitioner was wrongly invoked
in the case based on the alleged further statement without
any involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence.
None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have
stated about the involvement of the petitioner or his action
leading to the cause of accident, and none of the
witnesses have specifically identified the tractor and trailer
in which the alleged incident had occurred. Therefore, both
the trial Court and First Appellate Court have committed a
serious error in convicting the petitioner for the offence
charged against him, and the same call for interference by
this Court.
11. He would further submit that from the
complaint and the evidence produced by the prosecution,
it is evident that the petitioner was allegedly brought to
the police station on 26.11.2008 based on the alleged
further statement recorded on 24.11.2008, after a lapse of
20 days from the date of alleged incident. The complaint
lodged at the first instance does not reflect the name of
the petitioner as an accused for the case registered as
8
Crime No.79/2008. Though the complainant and the
accused were from the same village, the entire story built
by the prosecution for the involvement of the petitioner in
the alleged offence is without any basis, and the petitioner
ought to have been acquitted. Hence, the impugned order
passed by the courts below require to be set aside.
12. Further he would submit that PW.3 stated that
the accident occurred due to brake failure, and PW.2
deposed that at the time of the alleged accident, the road
was not properly maintained. Hence, both the Courts have
failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a proper
perspective and sought for allowing of the petition.
13. Per contra, the learned HCGP for respondent -
State submits that both the Courts have properly
appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law
and facts. Therefore, absolutely there are no grounds to
interfere with impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed
by the First Appellate Court and sought for dismissal of the
petition.
9
14. I have examined the materials placed before
this Court.
15. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides
and perusal of the materials placed before this Court, the
following points would arise for my consideration;
(a) Whether the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC Chincholi, which is
confirmed by the Fist Appellate Court, is
perverse, capricious, illegal and not
sustainable under law?
(b) What order?
16. My answers to the above points;
Point No.1: In the affirmative:
Point No.2: As per Final order:
Regarding Point No.2:
17. It is the case of the prosecution that; on
03.11.2008 at about 2.00 p.m., the complainant
Chandrashekhar, one Sanjappa S/o: Tippanna took the
grain grown in their land in the Tractor of one Sharanappa
10
bearing registration No.KA-32/T-4778 to Bidar. The
accused Revanasiddappa was the drive of the said vehicle.
On the same night they were returning from Bidar to their
village, at about 5.00 a.m., on Sulepeth-Sedam Road,
near the land of one Sangappa Mastar the accused
Revanasiddappa drove it in rash and negligent manner
i.e., in high speed, even though the inmates of the Tractor
and Trailer requested him to drive slowly. On accountof
that the Tractor turtle down on the left side of the road.
On account of that the complainant sustained injuries on
right foot, waist and thigh. The accused Revanasiddappa
also sustained fracture of bone. Another inmate Nanjappa
died on the spot since Trailer fell on him. The pedestrians
i.e., Gulabchand, Sangamesh and Bhimrao Police Patil
shifted the injured to Government Hospital, Sulepeth. At
about 8.30 p.m., CW.16-Varadaraju the PSI Sulepeth P.S.,
on receipt of MLC from Hospital, visited the Hospital and
recorded the complaint of CW.1 and registered the case in
Crime No.79/2008. Then, he conducted inquest
panchanama, cloths seizure panchanama and handed over
further investigation to CW.17-S.M.Inamdar, CPI Sulepeth
11
who after completion of investigation submitted charge
sheet.
18. The trial Court has acquitted the accused for
the offence under Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act and
convicted the accused for the offence under Section 279,
337 and 304(A) IPC. Further, the trial Court has acquitted
the accused for the offence under Section 338 IPC. Though
there is no conviction order against the accused, passed
the order of sentence for the offence under Section 338
IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6
months and to pay fine of Rs.500 with default sentence of
two months. The First Appellate Court has also not
observed the same and confirmed the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.
19. The genesis of this case arise out of the
complaint filed by PW.1, in which it is stated as under;
"£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄð£À «¼Á¸Àz° À è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉ
vÁ¬ÄAiÉÆA¢UÉ MPÀÌ®ÄvÀ£À PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ G¥Àfë¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É »ÃVzÀÄÝ ¤£Éß
¢£ÁAPÀ 03.11.2008 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 02.00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä
UÁæªÀÄzÀ gÉêÀt¹zÀÝ¥Àà s/o §¸Àªg À Ád PÉñÁégÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀAd¥Àà s/o w¥ÀàtÚ
£ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀÆr £ÀªÀÄä ºÉÆ®UÀ¼°À è ¨É¼z É ÀÄ gÁ² ªÀiÁrzÀ GzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉ¸g À ÀÄ
PÁ¼À£ÀÄß ©ÃzÀj£À UÀAf£À°è ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV £ÀªÀÄä UÁæªÀÄzÀ
±Àgt
À ¥Àà s/o ¤AUÀ¥Àà PÉñÁégÀ EªÀgÀ mÁæöåPÀÖgï £ÀA§gï KA 32 T 4778-79 £ÉÃ
zÁÝgÀ mÁæöå°AiÀÄ°è ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ. ¸Àzj À mÁæöåPÀÖg£
À ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ZÁ®PÀ£ÁzÀÀ
12
gÉêÀt¹zÀÝ¥Àà s/o §¸Àªg À Ád PÉñÁégÀ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ. £ÁªÀÅ ©ÃzÀgPÀ ÉÌ ºÉÆÃV
©ÃzÀj£À UÀAf£À°è £ÁªÀÅ vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ GzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉ¸g À ÀÄ
PÁ¼ÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß UÀAf£À°è CqÀvÀ CAUÀrUÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁr ©ÃzÀg¢ À AzÀ gÁwæ
ªÁ¥À¸ï aAZÉÆý ¸ÀįÉÃ¥ÉÃl ªÀiÁUÀðªÁV £ÀªÀÄä PÉÆAqÀ¥½ À îUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ
£Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ¸ÀAUÀqÀ ¸ÀAd¥Àà E§âgÀÆ mÁæöåPÀÖgï mÁæöå°AiÀÄ°è PÀĽwzÀÄÝ
mÁæöåPÀÖgz À À EAf£À°è gÁwæ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀĪÁVzÀÝjAzÀ gÉêÀt¹zÀÝ¥Àà ºÁUÀÆ £ÁUÀgÁd
EªÀgÀÄ E§âgÀÆ EzÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀįÉÃ¥ÉÃl¢AzÀ ¸ÉÃqÀA gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀAUÀ¥Àà ªÀiÁ¸ÀÖgï
EªÀgÀ ºÉÆ®zÀ ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÁUÀ mÁæöåPÀÖgï ZÁ®PÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß mÁæöåPÀÖg£ À ÀÄß Cwà ªÉÃUÀ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤µÁ̼f À vÀ£¢À AzÀ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ £ÁªÀÅ ¤zsÁ£ÀªÁV ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀÄ CAvÀ
ºÉýzÀgÀÄ PÉüÀzÉ Cwà ªÉÃUÀ¢AzÀ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹zÀÝjAzÀ mÁæöåPÀÖgï gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ JqÀ§¢UÉ
¥À°ÖAiÀiÁVzÀÝjAzÀ £À£U À É JqÀUq À É ¥ÁzÀzÀ ºÀwÛgÀ UÀÄ¥ÀÛUÁAiÀÄ mÉÆAPÀPÉÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
JgÀqÀÄ vÉÆqÉUÉ UÀÄ¥ÀÛUÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. £À£Àß eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ gÉêÀt¹zÀÝ¥Àà vÀAzÉ
§¸Àªg À Ád PÉñÁégÀ EvÀ¤UÉ mÁæöåPÀÖgï mÁæöå° ªÉÄïɩzÀÄÝ JqÀUÁ®Ä ªÉƼÀPÁ®Ä
ªÉÄÃ¯É ¨sÁj UÀÄ¥ÀÛ UÁAiÀĪÁV ªÀÄÆ¼É ªÀÄÄj¢gÀÄvÉÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §®UÁ®Ä vÉÆqÉUÉ
UÀÄ¥ÀÛUÁAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ JqÀUt À £
ÂÚ À ¨ÁdÄ gÀPÀÛUÁAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ
eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ ¸ÀAd¥Àà vÀAzÉ w¥ÀàtÚ w¥Àà EvÀ£À JzÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉÆmÉÖAiÀÄ
ªÉÄÃ¯É mÁæöåPÀÖgï mÁæöå° ©¢ÝzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JqÀUÁ®Ä ªÉÄÃ¯É mÁæöå°©zÀÄÝ
ªÉƼÀUÁ®Ä ªÉÄïÁâUz À ° À è ªÀÄÆ¼É ªÀÄÄjzÀÄ ¸Àܼz À °
À èAiÉÄà ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛ£.É
mÁæöåPÀÖgz À À EAf£ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀĽwzÀÝ E§âg° À è gÉêÀt¹zÀÝ¥Àà EvÀ£ÀÄ mÁæöåPÀÖgï
PɼUÀ É EzÀÝ £ÁUÀ¥Àà EvÀ¤UÉ ¸ÀtÚ ¥ÀÄlÖ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DVgÀÄvÀÛª.É £ÁªÀÅ
mÁæöå°AiÀÄ°èzÀÄÝ gÁwæ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀĪÁVzÀÝjAzÀ mÁæöåPÀÖg£ À ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ
JA§ §UÉÎ w½¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸Àzj À WÀl£É £Éqz É ÁUÀ 04.11.2008 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼V À £À
eÁªÀ 05.00 UÀAmÉAiÀiÁVvÀÄÛ DUÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ UÀįÁ¨ï ZÀAzï eÉÊ£ï
¸ÀįÉÃ¥ÉÃl ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀAUÀªÉÄñï s/o ±ÀAPÀgÁªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ©üêÀÄgÁªÀ s/o ¸ÀAUÀ¥Àà
¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï ¥Ánïï EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÀÄ £ÉÆÃr mÁæöåPÀÖgï mÁæöå°AiÀÄ£ÀÄß J©â¹
UÁAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀ £À£U À ÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÉêÀt¹zÀÝ¥Àà E§âjUÀÆ «ZÁgÀªÀiÁr MAzÀÄ lA
lA zÀ°è PÀÆr¹ aQvÉì PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸ÀgPÀ Áj D¸ÀàvÉæ aAZÉÆýUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ
¸ÀܼzÀ °
À èAiÉÄà ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀlÖ ¸ÀAd¥Àà s/o w¥ÀàtÚ w¥Àà EvÀ£À ªÀÄÈvÀ zÉúÀª£ À ÀÄß
ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀjÃPÉë PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸ÀgPÀ Áj D¸ÀàvÉæ ¸ÀįÉÃ¥ÉÃlPÉÌ vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ
ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛg.É mÁæöåPÀÖgz À °À è £ÀªÀÄä eÉÆvÉ EzÀÝ £ÁUÀ¥Àà EvÀ£ÀÆ J°èUÉ
ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛ£É w½¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
PÁgÀt mÁæöåPÀÖgï £ÀA§gï KA 32 T 4778-79 £ÉÃzÀÝ£Àß Cwà ªÉÃUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¤µÁ̼f À vÀ£¢ À AzÀ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ ¥À°ÖªÀiÁr¹ £À«Ää§âjUÉ gÀPÀÛUÁAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
UÀÄ¥ÀÛUÁAiÀÄ ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÁj UÀÄ¥ÀÛUÁAiÀĪÁV ¸Àܼz À °
À èAiÉÄà ¸ÀAd¥Àà EvÀ¤UÉ
ªÀÄÈvÀ¥r À ¹zÀ mÁæöåPÀÖgï ZÁ®PÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀª æ ÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À®Ä
«£ÀAw¹PÉƼÀî¯ÁVzÉ."
20. To prove the case, the Prosecution has
examined in all 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and 7
documents have been marked as Exs.P1 to P7.
13
21. PW.1-Chandrasekhar who is said to be the
complainant has deposed in his evidence that he knows
accused about 02-03 years back and he was proceeding in
the tractor which was driven by accused from Kondampally
village to Bidar along with Nagaraj, Sanjappa. When they
came near Sulepeth, the driver of the tractor drove the
same in a high speed due to which the tractor turtle. As,
as a result, he sustained injuries on his left leg, thigh and
waist. The trolley has capsized on the chest of Sanjappa.
Hence, he died on spot. Thereafter, he shifted to
Government Hospital Chandapur. He did not know the
number of tractor and trolley. Accordingly, he lodged a
complaint to the police as per Ex.P1. He has also given his
further statement to the complainant.
22. PW.2-Sangamesh S/o: Shankar Rao has
deposed in his evidence that about 3 years back, one day
he was proceeding in a tractor driven by accused along
with deceased Sanjappa and CW.1. When the tractor came
near Sulepeth, due to failure of brake, the tractor was
capsized. The accused drove the tractor in high speed and
14
CW.9 sustained injuries in this accident, CW.3 also
sustained injuries, Sanjappa died on the spot.
23. PW.3-Nagaraj Ambanna has deposed in is
evidence that, about 3 years back, one day, CW.1,
deceased Sanjappa and CW.6-Chandrakanth, were
proceeding in a tractor from Bidar to Kondampally Village.
When the tractor came near Sulepeth, the driver of the
tractor drove the same in a high speed. Due to which, the
tractor turtle. As a result of the accident, Sanjappa died on
the spot, CW.1 sustained injuries on his leg.
24. PW.4-Bheemrao S/o: Sangappa, said to be eye-
witness to the attester has deposed with regard to the
Panchanama.
25. PW.5-Gulab has also deposed with regard to the
accident of the tractor.
26. PWs.6 and 7-Rachaiah S/o: Gurulingayya and
Sharanappa S/o: Siddappa, PW6, stated to be attestor to
Exs.P3 and P4, seizure panchanama and inquest
panchanama respectively have not supported the case of
the prosecution and both were turned hostile.
15
27. PW.8-Vaijinath said to be the identity attestor
to the spot mahazar Ex.P2 has not supported the case of
the prosecution.
28. PW.9-Sharanappa S/o: Ningappa, has deposed
in evidence that the accused is his grand-son. The tractor
bearing registration No.KA-32/T-4778-79 belongs to his
son Basavaraj who passed away and he is looking after
the supervision of the said tractor. The accused was the
driver of the tractor and the doctor met with an accident
prior to one year.
29. PW.10-Mallikarjun S/o: Sharanappa, the police
constable has deposed in his evidence with regard to the
submission of FIR to the Court.
30. PW.17-Shankar S/o: Madhavrao Inamdar, the
Investigating Officer has deposed in his evidence with
regard to his part of investigation.
31. On careful examination of the entire evidence
on record, it is crystal clear that the PWs.1 to 3 have not
whispered anything about the rash and negligent act on
the part of accused. Even they have not deposed as to the
16
exact speed of the vehicle. On the contrary, PW.2 has
stated in his examination-in-chief that the accident
occurred due to failure of brake. This evidence of PW.2 is
contrary to the evidence of other material witnesses and
also the contents of complaint, IMV report at Ex.P5.
Though PW.2 has specifically stated in his examination-in-
chief that the accident occurred due to failure of brake,
this witness has not treated as hostile witness and cross
examined by the prosecution to ascertain the truth. Ex.P5,
the IMV report reveals that this accident was not occurred
due to any mechanical defect. However, the author of this
document has not been examined by the prosecution.
32. Moreover, the contents of IMV report is contrary
to the evidence of PW.2. The accident was occurred on
04.11.2008. The IMV report prepared by the concerned
Inspector at Ex.P5 is on 14.11.2008, after lapse of 10
days. The Motor Vehicle Inspector has examined this
vehicle in question, at the spot near Sulepeth Village. The
IMV report further reveals that the Motor Vehicle Inspector
has received the requisition from the PSI, Sulepeth on
17
12.11.2008. Ex.P2, mahazar dated 04.11.2008 reveals
that as on the date of conducting spot panchanama, the
Investigating Officer has taken possession of the vehicle to
his custody and left the tractor on the spot. The PF
No.52/2008 dated 04.11.2008 reveals that the
Investigating Officer has seized the tractor and trailer
bearing registration No. KA-32/T-4778/79 on 04.11.2008.
In column No.5 of the property form, it is stated that this
tractor and trailer was produced along by P.C.No.536 with
Item Nos.2 to 5 properties shown in P.F.No.52/2008
before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sulepeth Police Station
on 04.11.2008. The prosecution has not adduced any
evidence before the Court as to the mode of
transfer/shifting the vehicle from the place of crime to the
police station. Though in the P.F., the Investigating Officer
has specifically stated that P.C.No.536 has produced the
vehicle and other properties before him on 04.11.2008.
The IMV Inspector has written in his IMV report that, he
has inspected this vehicle on the spot near Sulepeth
Village on 14.11.2008 at 01.00 p.m. The contents of Ex.P5
and P.F.No.52/2008 and the contents of spot panchanama
18
are not consistent with each other. The report of Motor
Vehicle Inspector prima-facie reveals that he has not
conducted the examination of this vehicle on the spot on
14.11.2008 as the vehicle was in police station as per
P.F.No.52/2008. The Investigating Officer has also
produced the P.F., before the learned Magistrate and he
has taken permission from the learned Magistrate to retain
this vehicle and other items shown in P.F., till filing of the
final report. Additionally, though the Investigating Officer
has seized this vehicle on 04.11.2008, he has taken
permission from the learned Magistrate on 26.11.2008,
there is 22 days delay in reporting the seizure of this
vehicle to the learned Magistrate and this delay has not
been explained by the prosecution. Accordingly, the
Investigating officer has failed to comply the mandatory
provisions of Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
33. For the aforesaid reasons, the opinion given by
the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, who has given report as
per Ex.P5, cannot be believed and he has issued this Motor
Vehicle report without examination of the vehicle. The
19
Investigating Officer has mechanically filed requisition on
12.11.2008 after lapse of 8 days from the date of seizure
of the vehicle and obtained the report on 14.11.2008 only
for the purpose of filing this charge sheet against the
accused. The evidence of PW.2 which is not questioned by
the prosecution itself demolish the entire evidence of the
prosecution that this was accident occurred due to
mechanical defect i.e., failure of brake.
34. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any
cogent, convincing, corroborative, credible and believable
evidence to convict the accused for the alleged
commission of offences. Therefore, both the Courts have
not properly appreciated the evidence on record. Hence,
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed
by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the First Appellate
Court is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, I answer
point No.1 in the Negative.
35. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
20
ORDER
ii) The revision petition is allowed.
iii) Judgment of conviction and order on
sentence dated 06th February, 2012
passed in C.C.No.82 of 2009 by the
Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Chincholi,
which is confirmed by the IV Additional
Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi sitting at
Sedam, in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2012
dated 17th February, 2021, is set aside;
iv) Accused is acquitted for the offence
punishable under Sections 279 337, 338,
304(A) of IPC.
v) The Trial Court is directed to refund the
deposited amount, if any, to the
petitioner/accused after due identification.
Registry to send the copy of this judgment along with
TCR to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
msr
