Karnataka High Court
Sri. Devaraju vs State on 7 January, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:950
CRL.RP No. 854 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 854 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI DEVARAJU
S/O RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/A BEHIND JANATHA HOUSE
AND COURT, CHANANRAYAPATNA TOWN
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI V.SRINIVAS, ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY CHANNARAYAPATNA RURAL POLICE
CHANNARAYAPATNA
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116
Digitally
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING
signed by B'LORE - 01.
NANDINI M S ...RESPONDENT
Location:
HIGH COURT (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
OF
KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL.
DIST. AND S.J., JHASSAN DISTRICT (SIT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA) IN
CRL.A.NO.229/2016 DATED 27.06.2017 AND THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 10.11.2016 PASSED
IN C.C.NO.1457/2013 BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:950
CRL.RP No. 854 of 2017
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Accused is before this Court in this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.11.2016 passed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Channarayapatna, in CC.No.1457/2013, and the judgment and order dated 27.06.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.229/2016 by the Court of IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Hassan District, sitting at Channarayapatna.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent.
3. Petitioner herein was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A of IPC in CC.No.1457/2013.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.02.2013 at about 1.30 p.m., when PW-2 was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-13-S-8947 on NH-48 from Channarayapatna -3- NC: 2026:KHC:950 CRL.RP No. 854 of 2017 HC-KAR towards Hassan, the lorry bearing registration No.KA-41-721 which was driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the motor bike of PW-2 from its hind portion and had caused the road traffic accident in which PW-2 had sustained injuries and his wife - Lakshmamma who had sustained grievous injuries had succumbed to the same at the spot.
5. The petitioner who had appeared before the Trial Court in response to the summons received by him had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution in order to prove its charges against the petitioner, had in all examined nine charge-sheet witnesses as PW-1 to PW-9 and had got marked nine documents as Exs.P-1 to P-9. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was led nor was any document marked.
7. The Trial Court after recording the statement of the accused as provided under Section 313 Cr.PC, had thereafter, heard the arguments of both sides and vide the impugned judgment and order dated 10.11.2016 passed in CC.No.1457/2013, had convicted the petitioner for the offences -4- NC: 2026:KHC:950 CRL.RP No. 854 of 2017 HC-KAR punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month; for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC, petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month; and for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC, petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months.
8. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, petitioner had filed Cr.A.No.229/2016 before the Appellate Court, which was dismissed on 27.06.2017. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the petitioner. The courts below have failed to appreciate the -5- NC: 2026:KHC:950 CRL.RP No. 854 of 2017 HC-KAR aforesaid aspects of the matter. None of the charge-sheet witnesses have stated that petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The material on record would go to show that the accident in question had taken place on the left hand side of the road. The offending lorry was stopped immediately after the accident in question, which would go to show that the said vehicle was not driven in a high speed or in a rash and negligent manner. He submits that the accident in question had taken place on a National Highway which is 100 feet wide. He submits that there is discrepancy with regard to the width of the road. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
10. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the prayer made in the petition, and submits that the courts below have concurrently held against the petitioner and there is no scope for interference in this revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.PC. He submits that the evidence of PW-1 & PW-2 conclusively prove the charges leveled against the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC:950 CRL.RP No. 854 of 2017 HC-KAR
11. The prosecution in order to prove its charges against the petitioner has, in all examined nine witnesses as PW-1 to PW-9. PW-1 & PW-2 are the alleged eye-witnesses to the incident in question. PW-3 & PW-4 are the panch witnesses to the spot mahazar and PW-5 is the panch witness to the seizure mahazar. PW-6 is the owner of the offending vehicle. PW-7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who has issued the certificate - Ex.P-6. PW-8 is the Police Head Constable of Channarayapatna Police Station who had received the medico-legal intimation from the hospital in which PW-2 was taking treatment. PW-9 is the Circle Inspector of Police who had conducted the investigation in the present case and filed charge sheet against the petitioner.
12. To prove the charges against the petitioner-accused, the evidence of PW-1 & PW-2 becomes very much relevant.
13. PW-1 - Dharmegowda is said to be the distant relative of PW-2. He has stated that on the alleged date of incident, he was near their village gate and at about 1.30 p.m., he had seen PW-2 riding his motor cycle along with his wife from Channarayapatna towards Hassan. He has stated that the -7- NC: 2026:KHC:950 CRL.RP No. 854 of 2017 HC-KAR offending lorry after overtaking another vehicle had dashed against the motor bike of PW-2 from its hind portion and had caused the accident, in which PW-2 had sustained injuries and his wife - Lakshmamma had died. However, this witness has not stated that petitioner who was the driver of the offending lorry was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and therefore, the accident in question had taken place. This witness has only stated that the offending lorry which came from Channarayapatna side after overtaking another lorry had dashed against the motor bike of PW-2.
14. During the course of cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that the first information was submitted by the brothers of PW- 2 and not by him and he has also stated that he was not aware what was written in the first information by the police. He has stated that he was asked to sign by the police, and accordingly, he had signed on the first information. This witness has not stated that the offending lorry was driven in high speed by the petitioner or that the petitioner was driving the offending lorry in a rash and negligent manner.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:950 CRL.RP No. 854 of 2017 HC-KAR
15. PW-2 is the injured eye-witness in the present case. He was the rider of the motor bike to which the offending vehicle had allegedly dashed. This witness has stated that the offending lorry came from his hind portion and had dashed the motor bike. This witness has stated that when he was riding his motor bike with his wife as a pillion rider, the offending vehicle came from behind and dashed against his motor bike. He has not stated anything about the offending lorry overtaking another vehicle and dashing against his motor bike as stated by PW-1. PW-2 during the course of his examination-in-chief has stated that the offending lorry was driven in a high speed by its driver, but he has not stated that the offending lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner. It is relevant to note here that the offending lorry was coming from the hind portion of the bike in which PW-2 was riding with his wife. Therefore, it would be difficult for him to gauge the speed of the vehicle.
16. During the course of his cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that he was not aware on which part of the road the accident in question had taken place.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:950 CRL.RP No. 854 of 2017 HC-KAR
17. PW-3 & PW-4 who are the panch witnesses to the spot mahazar have stated that the accident in question has taken place on the left hand side of the road, and according to PW-1, the width of the road was about 15 feet, whereas PW-2 has stated that the width was about 20 feet. PW-3 & PW-4 have stated that the width of the road was about 60 feet.
18. The evidence of PW-5 to PW-8 is not helpful in any manner to the prosecution to prove the charges against the petitioner that he was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
19. PW-9 is the Investigation Officer who had conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. This witness has stated during the course of his examination-in-chief that the width of the road in which the accident had taken place is about 100 feet, whereas the spot mahazar which was allegedly prepared by him states that the width of the road was totally about 60 feet.
20. Ex.P-9 is the rough sketch of the accident spot. Perusal of the same would go to show that after the accident, the offending lorry had stopped much behind the motor bike in
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:950 CRL.RP No. 854 of 2017 HC-KAR which PW-2 was riding with his wife. According to PW-1, the offending lorry had overtaken another lorry and had dashed against the motor bike of PW-2. If that is so, the lorry should have overtaken the motor bike, whereas Ex.P-9 reflects that the lorry was stopped much behind the motor bike. Perusal of Ex.P-9 would also go to show that crossing towards Chowdenahalli is on the right hand side of the National Highway from Channarayapatna to Hassan and PW-2 is the resident of Chowdenahalli. The chances of PW-2 coming to the right hand side of the road so as to cross towards his village cannot be overruled considering the nature of oral evidence, the spot mahazar and Ex.P-9 - rough sketch of the accident spot.
21. The prosecution in order to prove the alleged offences against the petitioner is primarily required to demonstrate that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. No such evidence is forthcoming in the present case. PW-2 has only stated that the petitioner was driving the offending lorry in a high speed. The accident in question has taken place on the National Highway and merely for the reason that the vehicle was driven in high speed, it
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:950 CRL.RP No. 854 of 2017 HC-KAR cannot be said that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA VS SATISH - (1998)8 SCC 493, in paragraph no.4, has observed as under:
"4. Merely because the truck was being driving at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed".
"High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved."
23. Further, the offending vehicle was stopped immediately after the accident had taken place and it is found that the offending vehicle was behind the motor bike as against which it had allegedly dashed, and therefore, a serious doubt arises whether the offending vehicle was driven in high speed as stated by PW-2.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:950 CRL.RP No. 854 of 2017 HC-KAR
24. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects of the matter and in my opinion, had erred in arriving at a conclusion that the accident in question had taken place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the petitioner. The Appellate Court also has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects of the matter and has erred in mechanically confirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
25. Unless the prosecution proves that the driver of the offending vehicle was guilty of driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the alleged offences do not get attracted against him. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the courts below were not justified in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offences. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order:
26. Criminal revision petition is allowed. The the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.11.2016 passed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Channarayapatna, in CC.No.1457/2013, and the judgment and order dated
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:950 CRL.RP No. 854 of 2017 HC-KAR 27.06.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.229/2016 by the Court of IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Hassan District, sitting at Channarayapatna, are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A IPC. Bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. The fine amount, if any deposited, shall be refunded to the petitioner.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK