Karnataka High Court
Vasantha Kumar C. L vs State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20479
CRL.RP No. 1136 of 2018
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. 1136 OF 2018
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
VASANTHA KUMAR C. L .,
S/O NINGEGOWDA @ LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
DRIVER OF TANKER LORRY,
BEARING REGN. NO.KA-52-405
R/AT CHOWDANAHALLI,
CHIKKAARAKALAGOODU POST,
ARAKALAGOODU TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR PATEL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
STATE OF KARNATAKA
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: HIGH COURT BY KUDUR POLICE,
OF KARNATAKA
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 561 101
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M. R. PATIL, HCGP.)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 30.08.2016 PASSED IN
C.C.NO.151/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20479
CRL.RP No. 1136 of 2018
HC-KAR
JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI AND JUDGMENT DATED 4.12.2017
PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.12/2016 BY THE P.O OF III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA BY ALLOWING
THIS R.P. AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE
ACCUSED/PETITIONER OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST
HIM IN C.C.NO.151/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADII FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
279,304A OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL ORDER
Accused has preferred this revision petition against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30th August
2016 passed in CC No.151 of 2011 by the Civil Judge & JMFC,
Magadi (for short hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’)
which is confirmed by Judgment dated 04th December 2017
passed in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2016 by the III Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Ramanagara. (for short hereinafter
referred to as the ‘appellate Court’).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are that
Kudur Police have submitted charge-sheet against accused for
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:20479
CRL.RP No. 1136 of 2018
HC-KAR
offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of Indian
Penal Code and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. After
filing of charge-sheet, the Court has taken cognizance against
the accused for the alleged commission of offences and case
came to be registered in CC No.151. 2011. In response to the
summons, accused appeared before the Court and was
enlarged on bail. The substance of accusation was recorded.
Same was read over and explained to the accused. Having
understood the same accused pleaded, not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
4. To prove the case, prosecution, in all, examined
eight witnesses as PWs1 to 8 and seven documents were
marked as per Exhibits P1 to P7. On closure of prosecution
side evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Code
of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally
denied the evidence appearing against him but had not chosen
to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard
arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted the
accused for punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of
Indian Penal Code and passed sentence to undergo simple
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:20479
CRL.RP No. 1136 of 2018
HC-KAR
imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.9,000/- for offence
punishable under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and
further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six
months with five of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable under
Section 279 Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the said
Judgment of conviction and order on sentence, accused
preferred appeal before the III Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Ramanagara in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2016. The said
appeal came to be dismissed by Judgment dated 04th December
2017. Being aggrieved by the same, accused has preferred this
revision petition.
5. Sri Sunil Kumar Patel, learned Counsel appearing
for the revision petitioner would submit that both the Courts
have erred in coming to the conclusion that the accused has
committed offences punishable under sections 279 and 304(A)
of Indian Penal Code. The Courts have erred in not properly
appreciating the evidence of PWs1 & 2 who are the alleged eye-
witnesses to the incident. There is no proof that the accused
was the driver of the lorry at the time of accident. Both the
Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence in
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:20479
CRL.RP No. 1136 of 2018
HC-KAR
accordance with law and facts. Hence, the Judgment of
conviction passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the
appellate Court is liable to be set aside. In support of his
submissions, learned Counsel placed reliance on the Judgment
of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GURU BASAVARAJ @
BENNE SETTAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in
(2012)8 SCC 734. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the
revision petition.
6. As against this, Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that
the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record
in accordance with law and facts and convicted the accused
which is confirmed by the appellate Court. Absolutely, there
are no grounds to interfere with the impugned Judgment of
conviction and order on sentence, which is confirmed by the
appellate Court. On all these grounds, he sought for dismissal
of revision petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is,
Whether the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:20479
CRL.RP No. 1136 of 2018
HC-KAR
passed by the trial Court, which is affirmed by the appellate
Court is illegal, perverse, capricious, and suffers from legal
infirmities?
8. I have carefully examined the materials placed
before me. Though the prosecution has cited sixteen witnesses
in the charge-sheet, out of them only eight witnesses are
examined as PWx.1 to 8 and seven documents are marked as
Exhibits P1 to P7. In the charge-sheet, CW1-N R Shivanna,
who is the complainant, and CW2-Honnaiah are shown as eye-
witnesses. CW3-Ravikumar is shown as mahazar witness, CW4
is the attester to inquest panchanama and spot panchanama
witness, CW5-Sridhar is attester to inquest mahazar, CWs6 to 9
are also attesters to inquest panchanama, CW10 is the attestor
to seizure panchanama, CW11 is the owner of offending lorry
bearing registration number KA-52-405, CWs12 & 13 are
Inspector of Motor Vehicles and Medical Officer, respectively,
CWs14 to 16 are the investigating officers. Out of these, the
material witness, N.R. Shivanna is examined as PW1. He has
deposed in his evidence that on 06th February 2011 at 1:30 PM,
he and CW2-Honnaiah, were standing near High School
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:20479
CRL.RP No. 1136 of 2018
HC-KAR
Narasandra. At that time, a lorry bearing registration
numberKA-52-405 coming from Nelamangala side towards
Kunigal, was driven by its driver in a High speed, rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the cyclist-Manjunatha,
who was proceeding on the left side of the road. As a result,
cyclist died on the spot. The driver did not stop the Lorry and
sped away. In this background, he has lodged complaint
before the Police as per Exhibit P1. After filing the complaint,
police came to the spot and conducted manager as per exhibit
P2.
9. PW2-Honnaiah said to be the eye-witness has
deposed in his evidence that he and CW1-Shivanna were
standing near the high school at Narasandra and 06th February
2011 at 1:30 PM and at that time, the lorry coming from
Nelamangala side dashed to the cyclist who was proceeding on
the left side of the road, as a result of which cyclist died on the
spot. After the accident, the accused did not stop the lorry.
Thereafter, he has given complaint to the police in this regard.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:20479
CRL.RP No. 1136 of 2018
HC-KAR
10. PWs3 & 4 Ravi Kumar and Nanjappa, have deposed
in their evidence as to the mahazar conducted by the police as
per exhibit P2.
11. PW5-Sridhar has deposed in his evidence as to
mahazar conducted by police as per exhibits P2 & P6. This
witness is treated as partly hostile witness.
12. PW6-Ramesh Rangaswamaiah has deposed in his
evidence as to the mahazar conducted by the police, as per
Exhibit P2. This witness is also treated as partly hostile
witness.
13. PW7-Ramesha, Head Constable has deposed in his
evidence that on 07th February 2011, he was deputed to trace
out vehicle involved in crime No.30 of 2011. He located the
lorry parked near Kunigal Bus stand, and he brought the same
and produced before the Station House officer.
14. PW8-S H Rayappa, Police Constable, has deposed in
his evidence as to receiving of complaint from the complainant
and also as to initiation of case in Crime No.31 of 2015 and
submitting of FIR to the Court as per Exhibit P7 and also
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:20479
CRL.RP No. 1136 of 2018
HC-KAR
deposed as to request made to Inspector of Motor Vehicles to
give report.
15. A careful scrutiny of the entire case made before
this Court makes it crystal clear that that on the basis of the
complaint filed by PW1-Shvianna, the Kudur Police registered in
crime No.31 of 2011 against the driver of lorry No.KA-52-405
for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of
Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act and
submitted First Information Report to the Court as per Exhibit
P7 on 07th February, 2011 at 12.00 pm as endorsed by the
learned Magistrate. The accident took place on 6th February,
2011 at 7:30 PM. The First Information Report is registered
against the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-52-405, but the name
of the accused is not shown in the First Information Report.
Further, though the First Information Report was despatched
from the Police Station on 06th February 2011 at 2.45 pm,
same was submitted to the Court only on 07th February 2011 at
12.00 noon. The delay in submitting the First Information
Report to the Court has not been explained by the prosecution.
Though the accused was not known at the time of registration
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20479
CRL.RP No. 1136 of 2018
HC-KAR
of First Information Report, the Investigating Officer has not
issued notice to the owner of the vehicle to ascertain as who
was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant point of time, as
required under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The
name of the accused is also not shown in the complaint or First
Information Report. PW1 has not furnished the name of the
accused to the police. How the Investigating Officer has
secured the name and address of the accused has not been
disclosed by the prosecution. Even the Investigating Officer
has not been examined by the prosecution to explain as to how
he has traced the accused. Though the name of the accused is
not shown in the FIR, and no notice is issued under Section 133
of Motor Vehicles Act, Police papers reveals that the accused
has executed a bond to the police on 07th February, 2011. The
First Information Report submitted to the Court on 07th
February, 2011 at 12.00 noon. However, the name of the
accused is not shown in the First Information Report. The
Investigating Officer has also not collected the driving licence
particulars of the accused. These lapses create serious doubt
as to whether the accused was the driver of the vehicle at the
relevant point of time or not.
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20479
CRL.RP No. 1136 of 2018
HC-KAR
16. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, he
has clearly admitted that he cannot say the exact speed of the
vehicle. PW2 has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that
he has witnessed the incident only after the accident. Both
witnesses have clearly admitted in their evidence that the road
construction was going on in the place of accident. The same is
also reflected in the spot mahazar Exhibit P2. The width of the
road was only 30 feet and there was heap of mud near the
place of accident and one side there is divider and under such
circumstances the vehicle cannot be driven in high speed. PW1
has not deposed as to the rash and negligent act on the part of
the driver of the lorry. Viewed from any angle, absolutely there
are no materials placed by the prosecution to prove that the
accused, being the driver of the lorry bearing registration
No.KA-52-405, drove the same in rash and negligent manner
and dashed against the cyclist-Manjunath, causing his death.
Both the Courts have not appreciated the evidence on record in
accordance with law and facts. Since there is no cogent and
convincing evidence before the Court, so also, non-examination
of Investigating Officer is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20479
CRL.RP No. 1136 of 2018
HC-KAR
17. With regard to offence punishable under Section
187 of Motor Vehicles Act is concerned, though the trial Court
has framed charges for offence punishable under the said
Section, the trial Court has not given any finding as to the
offence punishable under Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act.
Even the trial Court has not convicted the accused for the
offence punishable under the said Section. In paragraph 38 of
the judgment, the Appellate Court has observed the same. For
the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point formulated is
answered in the affirmative. In the result, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
i) Revision Petition is allowed;
ii) Judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 30th August 2016 passed in CC No.151
of 2011 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi,
which is confirmed by Judgment dated 4th
December 2017 passed in criminal appeal
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20479
CRL.RP No. 1136 of 2018
HC-KAR
No.12 of 2016 by the III Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, are set aside;
iii) Accused/revision petitioner is acquitted of the
offences punishable under Section 279 and
304(A) of Indian Penal Code;
iv) The fine amount, if any, deposited by the
accused/revision petitioner shall be refunded
to him, in accordance with law;
v) The Registry to send the trial Court records
along with copy of this Order to the
concerned Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21