Kumara vs State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 2713 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Kumara vs State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2026

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                               -1-
                                                              NC: 2026:KHC:17222
                                                         CRL.RP No. 1065 of 2022


                   HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                             BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                        CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1065 OF 2022
                                   (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)-)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    KUMARA
                         S/O ANNAIAH
                         AGED 38 YEARS
                         R/O GANIGARA STREET
                         NAGAMANAGALA ROAD
                         K R PETE TOWN
                         K R PETE TALUK
                         MANDYA DISTRICT - 577133
                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI.GIREESHA J T.,ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI B
                   1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: High
Court of
                         BY K R PETE TOWN P S - 577133
Karnataka                REP BY SPP
                         HIGH COURT BUILDING
                         BANGALORE 560001
                                                                  ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

                        THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
                   ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
                   HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
                   JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCED PASSED BY THE
                   CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.FC, K.R.PETE IN C.C.NO.164/2009
                              -2-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC:17222
                                    CRL.RP No. 1065 of 2022


HC-KAR




DATED   12.02.2021   AND    CONFIRMED   BY    THE   III
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MANDYA (SITTING AT
SRIRANGAPATA) IN CRL.A.NO.5004/2021 DATED 28.06.2022.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA


                       ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Sri.Gireesha J. T., learned counsel for the

revision petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High

Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent.

2. Revision petitioner is the accused who has

suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable

under Section 353 of IPC in CC No.164/2009 dated

12.02.2021 which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.5004/2021

dated 28.06.2022.

3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal

of the revision petition are as under:

3.1. Driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-09/F-

2984 lodged a complaint with K.R.Pete Town Police stating

that on 03.08.2008, when complainant was driving the bus

NC: 2026:KHC:17222

HC-KAR

from K.R.Pete to Santhebachahalli, bus was halted in

Sharavanbelagola.

3.2. It is contended that on 04.02.2008, they had

visited K.R.Pete and left Shravanabelagola at about 12.30

p.m. near Santhebachahalli cross, near S.M.Lingappa

Community Hall at about 12.40 p.m.

3.3. At that juncture, two persons were standing on

the road and when the bus was stopped, complainant

directed them to give way for movement of the bus.

3.4. All of a sudden, revision petitioner came near

the driver door and dragged the complainant from the bus

by holding his uniform collar and assaulted him and torn

his uniform and thereby restrained the driver of the bus

from discharging his official duty and thus sought for

action against the revision petitioner.

NC: 2026:KHC:17222

HC-KAR

4. After registering the case in Crime

No.143/2008, investigated the matter and filed charge

sheet.

5. Presence of the accused person was secured

and charge was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and

therefore, trial was held.

6. In order to prove the case of the accused,

prosecution proceeded to examined driver of the bus being

the complainant as P.W.1 and five more witnesses

including Doctor as P.W.2 to P.W.6 besides marking torn

uniform shirt as M.O.1.

7. Prosecution placed on record five documentary

evidence namely complaint, wound certificate, spot

mahazar and letter from the higher authorities of the

KSRTC deputing the complainant to the bus bearing

No.KA-09/F-2894.

8. On conclusion of recording of the evidence by

the learned Trial Magistrate, recorded the accused

NC: 2026:KHC:17222

HC-KAR

statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C., wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory

circumstances.

9. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the

arguments of the parties in detail and convicted the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 353 of

IPC and sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.5,000/- and

simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an

appeal before the First Appellate Court in

Crl.A.No.5004/2021.

11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after

securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties

in detail and by considered judgment, dismissed the

appeal filed by the accused.

12. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is

before this Court, in this revision petition.

NC: 2026:KHC:17222

HC-KAR

13. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner

reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition

vehemently contended that the genesis of the crime as is

enunciated by the prosecution is per se incorrect.

14. He would further contend that the accused was

the owner of sheep and complainant being the driver of

the KSRTC bus, came in a rash manner and dashed

against one of the sheep which was questioned by the

accused. In that regard, oral altercation has taken place

which has been blown out of proportion by the

complainant in lodging a false complaint against the

accused. Jurisdictional police in a perfunctory manner,

investigated the matter resulting in filing of a false charge

sheet against the accused and said aspect of the matter is

not properly appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate

while convicting the accused which has been mechanically

upheld by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court

resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing

the revision petition.

NC: 2026:KHC:17222

HC-KAR

15. Alternatively, he would contend that in the

event, this Court, upholding the order of conviction,

accused being the first time offender, learned Trial

Magistrate ought to have granted the benefit of Probation

of Offenders Act and learned Judge in the First Appellate

Court did not even consider the said aspect of the matter

resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing

the revision petition to that extent.

16. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for the State/respondent support the impugned

judgments.

17. He would contend that accused and another

person were standing on the road blocking the way for

free movement of the bus. When the bus was stopped

and questioned by the driver of the bus, all of a sudden, it

is the accused who came near the door of the driver and

dragged the complainant out from the bus and caused

injury to him by dashing his head against the face of the

NC: 2026:KHC:17222

HC-KAR

accused and also pulling the uniform worn by the

complainant and there was a tear of the uniform. Same is

reported to the police without any delay resulting in

registration of the crime and filing charge sheet and thus,

sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

18. He would further contend that wound certificate

placed on record would fortify the stand of the prosecution

and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

19. Insofar as alternate submission made on behalf

of learned counsel for the revision petitioner is concerned,

learned High Court Government Pleader would contend

that attacking the KSRTC driver has become routine in the

rural areas for no fault of the driver and if any lenience is

shown to the accused same would result in encouraging

the similarly placed perpetrators of the crime and lenience

shown to such people would send a wrong message of the

society and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in

toto.