Karnataka High Court
Sri Hanumantha Naik vs State By Basavapatna Police Station on 10 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19690
CRL.RP No. 641 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 641 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI. HANUMANTHA NAIK,
S/O SRI. TAVARYA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT BOMMANAHALLI THANDA,
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAIK N.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY BASAVAPATNA POLICE STATION,
STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
BASAVAPATNA, CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by BANGALORE - 01.
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
28.09.2016 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN CRL.A.NO.107/2014 AND
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE ORDER DATED
13.08.2014 PASSED BY THE SR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
CHANNAGIRI IN C.C.NO.30/2014.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19690
CRL.RP No. 641 of 2017
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Channagiri in CC.No.30/2014 dated 13.08.2014, which is confirmed in Crl.A.No.107/2014, on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davangere, dated 20.09.2016.
2. The parties are referred as per the rankings of the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are that, the Circle Inspector of Police, Channagiri, has laid a charge sheet against the accused for offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 23.05.2012 at about 9.30 p.m., near Doddaghatta Village, Channagiri, Davangere road, the -3- NC: 2025:KHC:19690 CRL.RP No. 641 of 2017 HC-KAR accused being a driver of the Tractor Trailer bearing registration No.KA-17/TA-575 and KA-17/TA-576, has taken CW1 and CW2 and one Bhimanaik S/o. Sevyanaik for bringing fertilizers from Davangere. Bhimanaik was sitting on the engine mudguard. The accused drove the said Tractor and Trailer in a rash and negligent manner while coming from Tyavanagi. When they came near the lands of Pujar Halappa of Doddaghatta Village, Bhimanaik fell down and the rear wheel of the trailer rammed Bhimanaik suffering injury and he died on his way to the hospital and thereby the accused has committed the alleged offences.
4. After filing the charge sheet, the jurisdictional magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused for the alleged offences and the case was registered in CC.No.30/2014. The substance of plea was recorded, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the case of the prosecution, in all 7 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW7, 9 documents -4- NC: 2025:KHC:19690 CRL.RP No. 641 of 2017 HC-KAR were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. Accused has denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him, however, he has not adduced any evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC and passed the sentence. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davangere in Crl.A.No.107/2014, and the same came to be dismissed on 28.09.2016. Being aggrieved by the judgment of both Courts, the accused has filed this revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that absolutely there is no evidence to prove the offences under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
7. Though there are no independent witnesses, trial Court has convicted the accused without any -5- NC: 2025:KHC:19690 CRL.RP No. 641 of 2017 HC-KAR substantial evidence to show that the driver of the tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner. Further, he would submit that in Ex.P1-complaint the tractor number is shown as KA-17/TA-4575 and trailer number is shown as KA-17/TA-4576, whereas at the time of filing the charge sheet the tractor bearing registration No.KA17/TA- 575 and trailer number KA17/TA-576 is inserted for the reason that the tractor bearing No.KA-17/TA-4575 and KA-17/TA-4576, has no insurance as on the date of the accident and only to get claim as to the death of deceased, the tractor bearing No.KA-17/TA-575 and trailer number KA-17/TA-576 has been falsely implicated. The investigating officer has not explained anything in this regard. However, both Courts have failed to appreciate this fact and failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts, on all these grounds sought to allow the appeal. To substantiate his arguments he has relied on the following decisions:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:19690 CRL.RP No. 641 of 2017 HC-KAR
1. RENU KUNTA MALLAIAH v. STATE OF A.P, reported in AIR 2009 SCC 133.
2. STATE OF PUNJAB v. BALWINDER SINGH AND ORS, reported in AIR 2012 SCC 861.
3. STATE Tr.P.S.LODHI COLONY, NEW DELHI v.SANJEEV NANDA, reported in AIR SCC 3104.
4. ALISTER ANTHONY PAREIRA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, reported in AIR 2012 SCC 3802.
8. As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.M.R.Patil, would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Absolutely, that there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court. On all these grounds sought for dismissal of this revision petition.-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:19690 CRL.RP No. 641 of 2017 HC-KAR
9. Having heard the arguments on both sides and perusal of materials placed before me. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1) Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, which is confirmed by the appellate Court is perverse, capricious and suffers from legal infirmities?
2) What Order?
My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.(1): Affirmative.
Point No.(2): As per final order.
Regarding Point No.1:
10. The investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Channagiri has laid a charge sheet against the accused for offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that on -8- NC: 2025:KHC:19690 CRL.RP No. 641 of 2017 HC-KAR 23.05.2012 at about 9.30 p.m. near Doddaghatta Village, Channagiri, Davangere road, the accused being a driver of a tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-17/TA-575 and KA-17/TA-576, proceeding along with CW1 and CW2 drove the said tractor in a rash and negligent manner from Tyavanagi and when it came near the land of Puja Halappa of Doddaghatta Village, the Bhimanaik fell down from the mudguard, while the rear wheel of the tractor rammed on the body of Bhimanaik and he died on his way to the hospital.
11. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution, in all, has examined 7 witnesses as PW1 to PW7 and also produced documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9.
12. The genesis of the case arise out of Ex.P1 complaint filed by PW1-Ravi Naik. In the complaint, it is stated that as under:
"¢£ÁAPÀ 23.05.2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 7.30 WÀAmÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä UÁæªÀÄzÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÀÄAeÁ£ÁAiÀÄÌ, ©üêÀiÁ£ÁAiÀÄÌ ºÁUÀÄ ZÁ®PÀ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ £ÁAiÀÄÌ £ÁªÉ®ègÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä UÁæªÄÀ zÀ ªÁ¹ ºÀ£ÄÀ ªÀÄAvÀ £ÁAiÀÄÌgÀ -9- NC: 2025:KHC:19690 CRL.RP No. 641 of 2017 HC-KAR vÁ¬Ä ¢|| ZÀAzÀæªÀÄä PÉÆA. ¢|| UÁAUÁå£ÁAiÀÄÌ EªÀgÀ mÁæöåPÀÖgï EAd£ï £ÀA. KA-17 TA-4575 ºÁUÀÄ mÉæöÊ®gï £ÀA. KA-17 TA-4576 gÀ mÁæöåPÀÖgï-mÉæöÊ®gï£À°è ¨ÉƪÉÄäãÀºÀ½î vÁAqÁ¢AzÀ PÁ²¥ÀÄgÀPÉÌ ºÉÆgÀnzÀÄÝ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ£ÁAiÀÄÌgÀªÀgÀÄ mÁæöåPÀÖgï ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ. CªÀgÀ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ªÀÄ£É UÁqÀð ªÉÄÃ¯É ©üêÀÄ£ÁAiÀÄÌ PÀĽwzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄAd£ÁAiÀÄÌ£ÀÄ mÉæöÊ®gï£À°è PÀĽwzÉÝêÀÅ. EzÉ ¢£À gÁwÛ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 9.30PÉÌ vÁåªÀtV ZÀ£ÀßVj gÀ¸ÉÛ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ zÉÆqÀØWÀlÖ §½ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ £ÁAiÀÄÌ£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj mÁæöåPÀÖgï læAiÀÄ®gÀ£ÀÄß CwªÉÃUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CeÁUÀÄgÀÄPÀvɬÄAzÀ ZÀ°¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÝjAzÀ DvÀ£À ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è ªÀÄqïUÁqïð ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀĽwzÀÝ ©üêÀÄ£ÁAiÀÄÌ£ÀÄ DAiÀiÁ vÀ¦à PɼÀUÉ ©zÀÄÝ DvÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É mÉæöÊ®gï£À »A§¢ ZÀPÀæªÀÅ ºÁzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ DvÀ£À PÁ®Ä ºÁUÀÄ ¸ÉÆAlzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É »A§¢ ZÀPÀæ ºÁzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝjAzÀ wêÀæªÁzÀ gÀPÀÛ UÁAiÀÄUÁ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ, UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ ©üêÀÄ£ÁAiÀÄÌ£À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄAeÁ£ÁAiÀÄÌ CzÉ mÁæöåPÀÖgï mÉæöÊ®gï£À°è vÁåªÀtV ¸ÀPÁðj D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉvÀAzÀÄ aQvÉìUÁV zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è EzÀÝ ¹§âA¢ ©üêÀiÁ£ÁAiÀÄPÀÌ£ÀÄ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÝ£ÉAzÀÄ ¹§âA¢AiÀĪÀgÀÄ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. ±ÀªÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÁåªÀtV D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è EnÖzÀÄÝ ©üêÀiÁ£ÁAiÀÄÌ£À ¸Á«UÉ PÁgÀtªÁzÀ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ£ÁAiÀÄÌ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ZÁ®PÀ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ£ÁAiÀÄÌ£ÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¸ÀܼÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀgÁjAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛ£É."
13. PW1-Ravi Naik has deposed in his evidence that on 23.05.2012 at about 9.30 p.m., he, accused and CW2 were proceeding in a tractor bearing registration No.KA-17 TA-565 trailer number KA-17 TA-576 and the accused was the driver of the tractor, deceased Bhimanaik was sitting on mudguard, accused drove the tractor in a high speed, when the tractor came near Doddaghatta Village, Bhimanaik fell down from the mudguard, while the rear
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19690 CRL.RP No. 641 of 2017 HC-KAR wheel of the trailer rammed on the body and then they shifted Bhimanaik, to the Hospital, where the doctor said that Bhimanaik brought dead. Then he has lodged a complaint to the police as per Ex.P1, on the next day, the police came to the spot and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2.
14. PW2-Manja Naik has deposed his evidence that PW1, deceased Bhimanaik and accused were proceeding from Kashipura to Bomanahalli in a tractor bearing No.KA- 17/TA-4565 and trailer Nos.575-576. Bhimanaik was sitting on the mudguard. The driver of the tractor drove the tractor in a high speed. As a result, Bhimanaik fell down and then the trailer rammed on his waist then they shifted to the hospital, doctor has declared that deceased brought dead.
15. PW3-Chandra Naik, the owner of the tractor has not supported the case of the prosecution.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19690 CRL.RP No. 641 of 2017 HC-KAR
16. PW4-C.Parameshwar, Police Constable deposed that on 23.05.2012 has received the information as to the tractor accident bearing registration No.KA17/TA-575-576, he has intimated the same to the PSI. He has also deposed, that he has handed over the dead body to the legal heirs of the deceased.
17. PW5-Mohammed Zabeer, the Head Constable has deposed his evidence that on 23.05.2012 at about 9.30 p.m., he has visited the spot of the accident i.e., Doddaghatta and then he has informed the same to the higher officer. CW14 has deputed him to trace out the tractor, trailer and the driver. That on 25.05.2012 with the help of local driver he brought tractor and trailer to the police station, Davangere and informed the same to CW14.
18. PW6-Nagendrappa Rudrappa has deposed in his evidence as to mahazar conducted by the police as per Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and this witness has partly turned hostile and he was cross-examined by the Assistant Public
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19690 CRL.RP No. 641 of 2017 HC-KAR Prosecutor with the permission of the Court, in which he has clearly admitted that, the police have seized the tractor No.KA17/TA-575 and trailer No.KA17/TA-576.
19. PW7-Prabhugouda Patel, DYSP has deposed in his evidence as to the investigation conducted by him.
20. A careful examination of entire materials placed before this Court, makes it crystal clear that on basis of the complaint filed by one Ravi Naik-PW1 the Basavapatna Police have registered the case in Crime No.104/2012 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A against the accused-Hanumantha Naik, who is the driver of tractor bearing No.KA17/TA-4575 and trailer No.KA17/TA-4576.
21. The PW1 has not whispered anything as to the further statement said to have been recorded by the investigating officer. Even PW7 investigating officer has not whispered anything as to recording further statement of the PW1 as to the change of registration number of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19690 CRL.RP No. 641 of 2017 HC-KAR tractor and trailer. On the contrary, PW1 has stated that the tractor No.KA17/TA-4565 is involved. This number is not shown in the charge sheet or in the FIR. PW2 has stated that the vehicle involved in the accident is tractor bearing registration No.KA17/TA-4575 and trailer No.KA17/TA-4576. The owner of the vehicle has not supported the case of the prosecution.
22. Ex.P3-Panchanamma, which is conducted by the police on 24.05.2012 reveals that HC.No.88 Sri. Mohammed Javed has produced the tractor bearing No.KA17-TA-575 and trailer No.KA17-TA-576. Accordingly, they have conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P3. The said Sri.Mohammed Javed, Head constable was examined as PW5. He has deposed in his evidence that he brought the vehicle on 25.05.2012 with the assistance of local driver and produced before the police station, Davangere. During his cross examination he has clearly admitted that he cannot say the tractor number and company of the tractor. When the police official head constable PW5 has deposed
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19690 CRL.RP No. 641 of 2017 HC-KAR before this Court on oath that he has produced the vehicle on 25.05.2012, the question of seizure of the vehicle of the mahazar under Ex.P3 on 24.05.2012 does not arise. This evidence of PW5 falsify the contents of Ex.P3- Panchanamma. The investigation officer has not properly conducted the investigation, he has created Ex.P3- mahazar before production of this tractor and trailer, he has prepared his mahazar in the police station. Even the investigating officer has not whispered anything as to the difference of numbers of the registration of the tractor and trailer which is shown in the Ex.P1 complaint and evidence of PW1 and PW2. When there is a material contradiction as to the registration numbers of the tractor involved in the accident, the investigating officer ought to have issued notice to the concerned owners of the said vehicle as required under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act. The investigation officer has failed to comply the mandatory provisions of Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19690 CRL.RP No. 641 of 2017 HC-KAR
23. When the prosecution has filed to prove the involvement of the alleged tractor bearing No.KA17/TA- 575 and trailer No.KA17/TA-576, the question of driving this tractor by the accused in a rash and negligent manner does not arise. Absolutely, there is no cogent corroborative, convincing, clinching and legally acceptable evidence before the Court. However, both the Courts have failed to appreciate evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and mechanically, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is not sustainable under law and the same suffer from legal infirmities. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative. Regarding Point No.2:
For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed.
ii. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Senior Civil Judge
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19690 CRL.RP No. 641 of 2017 HC-KAR and J.M.F.C. Channagiri in CC.No.30/2014 dated 13.08.2014, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.107/2014 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davangere, dated 28.09.2016 are hereby set-aside.
iii. The accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
iv. The fine amount deposited, if any, by the accused before the trial Court, shall be refunded to him in accordance with law.
v. Registry is directed to return the trial Court records along with copy of the judgment to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 CT: BHK