Karnataka High Court
Manoj Kumar vs State By Kaup Police Station on 6 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:7120
CRL.RP No. 708 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 708 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
MANOJ KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
SON OF MR YOGINDRA MAHATA
RESIDENT AT JORAMANDIR
MEHIDIBAGAN, BURDWAN
WEST BENGAL - 713 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAKSHITH PAI, ADV., FOR
M.V. SUNDAR RAMAN, ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY KAUP POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by NANDINI M (BY SRI RAJATH SUBRAMANYAN, HCGP)
S
Location: HIGH THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.3.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL.
SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI DIST., UDUPI IN CRL.A. NO.110/2013 AND
CONSEQUENTLY THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2013 PASSED BY THE
II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI IN C.C.NO.937/2012 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ACQUITTING THE PETR. FROM THE OFFENCES P/U/S
279,338 AND 304-A OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:7120
CRL.RP No. 708 of 2015
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Accused is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.937 of 2012 by the Court of II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Udupi dated 16.11.2013 and the judgment and order passed by the Court of Principal District & Session Judge, Udupi in Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2013 dated 25.03.2015.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that CW18- Chaluvaraju, who was the Circle Inspector of Police, had laid a charge sheet against petitioner herein Crime No.16 of 2012 for offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. Allegation against the petitioner is that on 28.01.2012, he had driven the Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-20-B- 8990 from Udupi towards Mangaluru on National Highway-66, in a rash and negligent manner and at about 06.10 a.m. when he reached near Udyavara village, Udupi Taluk, after trying to -3- NC: 2026:KHC:7120 CRL.RP No. 708 of 2015 HC-KAR overtake another vehicle, he went to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against Indica car bearing registration No.KA-41-4244, which was coming from the opposite side and went further and which got turtled. In the said accident, PW1- Krishna Acharya, PW4-Shyamala and PW5-Wasim Basha, who was the driver of the car sustained injuries and another inmate namely Murali, who also had sustained injuries succumbed to the same and subsequently died in the hospital on 30.01.2012.
4. Petitioner in response to the summons received by him from the Trial Court in C.C.No.937 of 2012 had claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its charges against the petitioner had in all examined ten charge sheet witnesses as PW1 to PW10 and got marked 19 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. On behalf of the defence, petitioner was examined as DW1. However, no documents were marked on his behalf. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, by judgment and order dated 16.11.2013, convicted and sentenced the petitioner in C.C.No.937 of 2012 for offences punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304A of IPC. For the -4- NC: 2026:KHC:7120 CRL.RP No. 708 of 2015 HC-KAR offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC, petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and pay fine of ₹.900/- and for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and pay fine of ₹.3,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. For the offence punishable under Section 279, no separate sentence was passed. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.937 of 2012 was confirmed by the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2013 by judgment and order dated 25.03.2015. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, PW1, who is the first informant in the present case has not supported the case of the prosecution. Evidence of PW4 and PW5 is full of contradictions. PW2 and PW9 who are the mahazar witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. He refers to -5- NC: 2026:KHC:7120 CRL.RP No. 708 of 2015 HC-KAR rough sketch Ex.P17 and also the photographs at Exs.P2 and Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 and submits that it becomes highly doubtful that the lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the petitioner considering the nature of damage caused to the two vehicles. He submits that, the deposition of DW1 has not been properly appreciated by Courts below which has resulted in erroneously convicting the petitioner for the alleged offences. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MRS. SHAKILA KHADER AND OTHERS V. NAUSHEER CAMA AND OTHERS - (1975) 4 SCC 122 and also the case of SYED AKBAR V. STATE OF KARNATAKA - (1980) 1 SCC 30.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order and submits that two Courts have concurrently held against the petitioner. Therefore, scope to interfere with the same is very minimum. He also submits that PW4 and PW5, who are the eyewitnesses to the accident in question, have clearly alleged that petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and after trying to overtake another vehicle, he had come towards the -6- NC: 2026:KHC:7120 CRL.RP No. 708 of 2015 HC-KAR extreme right hand side of the road and dashed against the oncoming car in which the injured witnesses and the deceased were travelling. He submits that the rough sketch Ex.P17 clearly shows that the accident in question has taken place on the left-hand side of the road from Mangaluru to Udupi. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
7. Allegation against the petitioner is that on 28.01.2022 at about 06.10 a.m, he had driven the Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-20-B-8990 in a rash and negligent manner on the National Highway from Udupi towards Mangaluru and after trying to overtake another vehicle had come to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against the oncoming vehicle Indica car bearing registration No.KA-41- 4244 and caused accident in which Murali P had died and three other inmates namely Krishna Acharya - PW1, Shymala - PW4 and Vasim Basha - PW5 had suffered injuries.
8. The prosecution in order to prove its charges against the petitioner has in all examined ten charge sheet witnesses in the present case. PW1, PW4 and PW5 are the eye witnesses to the accident in question and they were travelling -7- NC: 2026:KHC:7120 CRL.RP No. 708 of 2015 HC-KAR in the Indica car that was involved in the accident in question. PW1 is the complainant and Ex.P1 is the complaint given by him. This witness has stated that on 28.01.2012 he was sitting on the side of the driver in the car and the deceased and his wife PW4 were sitting in the rear seat of the car. Since, this witness had not stated the manner in which the accident in question had taken place, he was treated as a hostile witness.
9. PW4 and PW5 are the other two eye witnesses in the present case. PW4 is the wife of the deceased and PW5 is the driver of the vehicle. PW4 and PW5 have stated that, petitioner who was the driver of the offending vehicle had driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on the National Highway and after trying to overtake another vehicle, he had dashed the offending lorry against the car, which was coming on the extreme left side of the road from Mangaluru towards Udupi.
10. The rough sketch of the accident is produced and marked as Ex.P17. Perusal of the same would go to show that accident in question had taken place on the extreme left side of the National Highway from Mangaluru to Udupi. Therefore, it is -8- NC: 2026:KHC:7120 CRL.RP No. 708 of 2015 HC-KAR apparent that, the car was moving on the left hand side of the road. The offending vehicle, which was coming from Udupi to Mangaluru has dashed against the oncoming car and as a result the right side of the car as well as the left side of the offending vehicle was damaged as could be seen from the photographs at Ex.P2 and Ex.P4 to Ex.P6. After the accident, the lorry had moved further towards the right, got turtled and had fallen down from the road, which would go to show that the lorry was not only driven in a rash and negligent manner but also in a high speed and therefore, the driver could not control the offending vehicle even after the accident had taken place.
11. The petitioner, who was examined as DW1 has stated that he had moved towards the right side of the road in order to avoid the oncoming car and thereby he has admitted that accident in question had taken place on the right side of the road and he had moved towards the wrong side. The IMV report at Ex.P19 would go to show that the accident in question had not taken place due to any mechanical failure of the vehicles.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:7120 CRL.RP No. 708 of 2015 HC-KAR
12. PW7 is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who had registered the FIR and PW8 is the Sub Inspector of Police who had partly conducted the investigation and PW10 is the motor vehicle inspector. PW9 is the pancha to the spot mahazar. PW2 is another pancha to the spot mahazar and PW3, who is the eyewitness as well as pancha to the spot mahazar at Ex.P3 have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated hostile.
13. Be that as it may, the prosecution has proved its charges against the petitioner based on the evidence of PW4 and PW5, the photographs at Ex.P2 and Ex.P4 to Ex.P.6 and the rough sketch of the spot of accident - Ex.P17. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on the record have rightly convicted the petitioner for the charge sheeted offences.
14. The judgment on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the same is rendered taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence in the said cases.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7120 CRL.RP No. 708 of 2015 HC-KAR
15. It is trite that judgments can be relied as precedent only if the same is applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the present case, the prosecution has proved its charges against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence of PW4, PW5 coupled with documentary evidence at Ex.P2 and Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 and also Ex.P17. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the Courts below, which are passed after properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record. Insofar as the order of sentence passed against the petitioner is concerned, considering the fact that the accident in question had taken place in the year 2012 and already more than 14 years have passed thereafter, I am of the opinion that, if the order of sentence passed against the petitioner is modified, the same would serve the ends of justice.
16. Accordingly the following:-
ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7120 CRL.RP No. 708 of 2015 HC-KAR ii. The impugned judgment and order of conviction passed against the petitioner by the Courts below, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC is confirmed.
iii. For the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC, petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month and pay fine of ₹.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week.
iv. For the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC, the petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of ₹.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
v. The sentences shall run concurrently and the petitioner is entitled for set off as provided under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48