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 2017HC-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 2017HC-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 2017HC-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