Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri K Nagaraja vs State Of Karnataka By on 29 April, 2026

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                             -1-
                                                    CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2018



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                           BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                      CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1290 OF 2018
                                (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)
                   BETWEEN:

                      SRI K NAGARAJA
                      S/O KRISHNAPPA
                      AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
                      R/AT THATTANAKUNTE (V)
                      MULBAGAL TALUK,
                      KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
                                                              ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI M R NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                      STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
                      MULBAGAL POLICE,
                      KOLAR DISTRICT,
                      REPRESENTED BY
                      STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                      HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
                      BENGALURU-560 001.
                                                             ...RESPONDENT

Digitally signed   (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
by R
MANJUNATHA         PLEADER)
Location: HIGH          THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
COURT OF           SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
KARNATAKA
                   PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
                   CONVICTION AND ORDER ON SENTENCE DATED 02.04.2014
                   PASSED IN C.C.No.134/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
                   CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MULBAGAL FOR THE OFFENCE
                   PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279, 337, 338, 304A OF IPC
                   AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE AFORESAID OFFENCES
                   AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
                   26.09.2018 PASSED IN CRL.A.No.33/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
                   I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR.
                                -2-
                                      CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2018



    THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA


                          CAV ORDER



      Heard Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High

Court Government Pleader.


2.    Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C No.

134/2009 confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.33/2014 is the

revision petitioner.


3.    Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for

disposal of the present petition are as under:

      3.1   In respect of road traffic accident that occurred on

13.10.2008 at about 1.35 am on National Highway near

Mallapanahalli gate which runs from Bengaluru to Chennai,

involving KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-07/F-1177 and

yet another KSRTC Volvo bus bearing registration No.KA-01/F-

7383, a complainant came to the lodged by one Venkataramu,

resident of Bommanahalli, Hassan District.
                                   -3-
                                          CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2018



      3.2     The complainant was one of the inmates of Volvo

Bus   which    was   proceeding    from    Bengaluru   to   Chennai.

Complainant was travelling along with his two friends in the

said bus.

      3.3     It is his specific case that when the bus reached

near Mallapanahalli gate, driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing

registration No.KA-07/F-1177 came from opposite side from

Tirupathi to Bengaluru, in a rash and negligent manner and

there was a head on collision with Volvo bus.

      3.4     According to the complainant, because of the

impact, he sustained injuries to his left leg.     His friends viz.,

Appajigowda, Somashekar and Nagaraj also sustained injuries

to various parts of the body.           All of them were taken to

R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar, for treatment.

      3.5     It is further stated that on account of the impact of

the accident, about ten persons died and several other

passengers sustained injuries.


4.    Based on the said complaint, Mulabagilu Police registered

a case in Crime No.339/2008 for the offences punishable under

Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

Revision petitioner/accused is the driver of the bus bearing

No.KA-07/F-1177.
                                -4-
                                         CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2018



5.   Names of the persons who lost their lives and in which

bus they were travelling is culled out hereunder:


       1) Kum. Rekha D/o. Bangara           KA-07-F-1177
       Naika, 10 years,

       2) Lakshmaiah S/o. Late Ramaiah,     KA-01-F-7383
       R/o. Hosakot Taluk,

       3) Vishnupriya D/o. Jagadish,        KA-01-F-7383
       Software Engineer, 28 years,

       4) Amit Kumar Sinha S/o. Ajay        KA-01-F-7383
       Kumar, 28 yrs, Software Engineer,
       R/o. Jharkand State.

       5) Jagannath Sai S/o. Janma Sai,     KA-01-F-7383
       A/a. 28 years, R/o. Orissa State,
       Software Engineer

       6) Sachin Rao S/o. Sadananda         KA-01-F-7383
       Rao, R/o. Bantwal Taluk.

       7) Nagaraju S/o. Sonnegowda,         KA-01-F-7383
       R/o. Nagalapura, Holenarasipura
       Taluk.

       8) Smt. Asha Hoogar D/o. B.P.        KA-01-F-7383
       Hoogar, R/o. Tumakuru Town.

       9) Sri. Balaji S/o. Prabhakar        KA-01-F-7383
       Shastry, major, R/o. Ananthapura,
       A.P.

       10) Smt. Pankaja W/o. Shivaraj,      KA-01-F-7383.
       A/a. 28 years, R/o. Gayathripurm,
       Mysore.




6.   Police after investigation filed the charge sheet. Presence

of the driver of the bus bearing No.KA-07/F-1177 was secured
                                -5-
                                       CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2018



by the learned Trial Magistrate after taking cognizance.    Plea

was recorded.     Accused pleaded not guilty therefore trial was

held.


7.      In order to prove the case of the prosecution, in all 18

witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 18, of which PW-1 is the

complainant. Majority of others are, injured witnesses, doctor

who issued the wound certificates, postmortem reports and the

investigation officers.


8.      Prosecution placed on record as many as 42 documents

which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-42

comprising of complaint, spot mahazar, wound certificates,

indemnity bonds, inquest reports, IMA reports, postmortem

reports.


9.      On conclusion of recording of evidence of prosecution

witnesses, accused statement as is contemplated under Section

313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded.


10.     Accused has denied all the incriminating circumstances

adduced against him.      For question No.21, he has answered

that on the day of incident he was not the driver of the bus, but

he was the conductor. Therefore he is not responsible for the
                                -6-
                                      CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2018



alleged offence and it is Anjaneya Prasad who was the driver of

the bus.


11.    On record, there is defense evidence in the form of

accused getting himself examined as DW-1, wherein he has

stated that on the day of the incident, he was the conductor of

the offending bus and Anjaneya Prasad was the driver of the

bus.


12.    In his cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution, he

admits that original of Exhibit D-1/log sheet is in Divisional

Office. He denies that Exhibit D-1 is a concocted document.


13.    He further admits that Exhibit D-2/route copy is given by

the Depot Manager. He has answered that he has been

appointed as driver cum conductor. He further admits that the

date mentioned in Exhibit D-2 as 11.10.2008 which is the same

date as mentioned in Exhibit D-1.


14.    He further admits that he has sustained injury on his

right hand, head, nose and fingers of the legs. He has further

answered that on 13.10.2008 the incident has occurred.
                                -7-
                                         CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2018



15.   He has also answered that he was also admitted to

R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar.     But driver of the bus namely

Anjaneya Prasad did not sustain any injury.


16.   He has further answered that right side of the offending

bus has dashed against the opposite bus and he has not

informed either the higher officials or the police that it is

Ajaneya Prasad who was the driver of the offending bus.


17.   In his further examination-in-chief, he has stated that

between 11.10.2008 to 13.10.2008, he was the conductor of

the offending bus. He admits in his further cross-examination

that he has not produced any documents from the higher

officials to establish that he was working as conductor.


18.   Above evidence on record was appreciated by the learned

Trial Magistrate. Accepting the prosecution case, convicted the

accused and sentenced as under:

      "Having committed an offence u/Sec.279 of IPC the
      accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of one
      year and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.   In default of
      payment of fine amount he shall further undergo
      simple imprisonment of 4 months.


      Having committed an offence u/Sec.337 & 338 of IPC
      the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of 3
                                      -8-
                                                CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2018



      months each and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In
      default of payment of fine amount he shall further
      undergo simple imprisonment of 1 month each.


      For having committed an offence u/Sec.304A of IPC
      he shall undergo simple imprisonment of one year and
      shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of
      fine   amount     he   shall    further     undergo     simple
      imprisonment of 6 months."


19.   Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal

before the District Court which came to be dismissed after re-

appreciation of the material on record.


20.   Thereafter accused is before this Court in this revision

petition.


21.   Sri    M.R.Najunda     Gowda,        learned      counsel    for   the

petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition,

contented     that    both   the     Courts      have   not     taken    into

consideration the probative value of Exhibits D-1 and D-2 and

sought for allowing the petition.


22.   He would further contend that in a matter of this nature,

prosecution is expected to prove the case beyond reasonable

doubt and expecting the accused to place the material evidence
                                   -9-
                                         CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2018



that he is innocent is incorrect and sought for allowing the

petition.


23.   Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

supports the impugned judgments by contending that none of

the inmates of both the bus nurtured any enmity or animosity

against the accused to falsely implicate him in the case and

therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.


24.   Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court

perused the material on record meticulously.


25.   On such perusal of the material on record, the incident

wherein     two   KSRTC   buses    having   head-on   collision   on

13.10.2008 at 01.35 a.m. stands established by placing

necessary material evidence on record.


26.   Admittedly, one of the inmates of Volvo bus namely PW-1

by name Venkataramu has set criminal law into motion.


27.   He was taken to R.L.Jalappa Hospital at Kolar. So also,

other injured were taken to said hospital. In the incident about

ten persons died as referred to supra.
                                  - 10 -
                                            CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2018



28.   The Sole defence that has been taken by the accused is

that he was not the driver of the offending bus and it is the

Anjaneya Prasad who was driving the bus at the time of

accident.


29.   Pertinently, Anjaneya Prasad has not sustained any

injuries and it is the present petitioner who has sustained the

injuries.    If Anjaneya Prasad was to be the driver of the

offending bus, when there is a head-on collision where the right

side of the offending bus dashed the Volvo bus on its right side,

it is the driver who has to sustain the injury and not the

conductor.


30.   Moreover, Anjaneya Prasad is examined as PW-5. In his

evidence, a suggestion is no doubt made on behalf of the

accused that he was driving the offending bus on the date of

the incident. However, in his cross-examination, he has denied

that the accused was deputed as conductor of the bus. He also

denied that he was deputed as driver of the bus.


31.   To    establish   that   petitioner   is   driver   of   the   bus,

Ex.D.1/log sheet and Ex.D.2/route copy are placed on record.
                                - 11 -
                                        CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2018



32.    Admittedly, authors of Exhibit D-1 and Exhibit D-2 are

not examined by the petitioner. Moreover, custody of Exhibit

D-1 and Exhibit D-2 is not properly established by the

petitioner.


33.    Therefore, contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner

that he was only a conductor of the bus, stands not established

not only from the documentary evidence that has been placed

on record, but also by the fact that he has sustained injuries

and Anjaneya Prasad has not sustained injuries.


34.    Therefore, the Trial Magistrate and learned Judge in the

First Appellate Court were justified in holding that petitioner

has failed to prove that he was not the driver of the offending

bus.


35.    Moreover, other material evidence placed on record would

go to show that petitioner was the driver of the bus.


36.    Admittedly none of the injured witnesses nurtured any

previous enmity or animosity, including Anjaneya Prasad to

falsely implicate the accused in the incident.
                                - 12 -
                                        CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2018



37.   Accordingly, the order of conviction recorded by the

learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the

First Appellate Court needs no interference.


38.   So also the sentence, having regard to the fact that ten

persons have lost their lives in the incident and there are no

mitigating circumstances.


39.   Hence, the following:

                              ORDER

Revision Petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm