IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G. BASAVARAJA, J.
Sri Rajesh, S/o. Dejappa Gowda – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Represented By Circle Inspector Of Police, Puttur Rural Circle, Uppinangady, Represented By The State Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 879 of 2017
Decided On : 25-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case initiation and background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts of the accident and trial process. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's review regarding prior judgments. (Para 8) |
| 4. arguments regarding witness credibility. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's analysis of evidence and witness testimonies. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. evidence evaluation regarding mechanical failure. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
ORDER :
(G. BASAVARAJA, J.)
The revision petitioner/accused has preferred this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21st October, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Puttur (for short hereinafter referred to as "trial Court") in CC No.1942 of 2008, which is confirmed by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, sitting at Puttur (for short hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Court"), in Crl.A.No.5003 of 2016 dated 26th September, 2016.
2. Parties to this revision petition are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Circle Inspector of Police, Puttur Rural Circle, Uppinangady, has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, 338, and 304(A) of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 181 of the IMV Act. It is alleged that CW.1/PW.1-Rajappa Gowda is the resident of Periadka and Chibidre village, Belthangady Taluk, and that on 20th May 2008, he and his relatives Nemanna Gowda, Laxmana Gowda, Naveena and Sooryanarayana Bhat and others had been to Subramanya Temple in two jeeps for performing 'Sarpa Samskara'. After the pooja, they headed back from Subramanya Temple at 2.30 p.m. In one Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-21-A-5466, Suryanarayana Bhat, Nemanna Gowda, Laxmana Gowda, Naveena, Anne Gowda, Janardhana Gowda, Somanatha, Sathish Gowda, Kamalaksha, Nemanna Gowda and its driver-Rajesh were travelling; and CW.1, his relatives and others, were travelling in another Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-20-M-1428. The ill-fated Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-21-A-5466 was being driven by the accused herein. The said Jeep was followed by the Jeep in which CW.1 was proceeding. When the said jeep was proceeding near Siribagilu on Subramanya-Gundya Road, near Pilicharu, the driver drove the same in a rash and high speed so as to endanger human life, and while so driving, accused lost control and dashed to a Marjoram (maruva) tree that was situated at a distance of 5 feet from the edge of the said Subramanya- Gundya road. Due to impact, the top of the said Jeep was entangled in the tree itself and it further proceeded 30 feet towards northern side and turned turtle, as a result of which, the inmates of the said Jeep viz. Narayana Bhat, Kamala, Anni @ Gangayya Gowda, Nemanna, Naveena and Laxmana Gowda died at the spot, and its driver-accused Rajesh, one Nemanna Gowda, Janardhana, Somanatha and Sathish Gowda sustained grievous injuries. Immediately CW.1 shifted them to the nearby hospital in an Ambulance with the assistance of passers-by and later he lodged complaint with the police. After investigation, police have submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of IPC.
4. After filing of charge sheet, the case was registered in CC No.1942 of 2008 and summons was issued against the accused. In response to the summons, the accused appeared before the Court through his counsel and was enlarged on bail. The substance of plea was recorded. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has, in all, examined fourteen witnesses as PW.1 to PW.14 and 33 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P33. Accused had totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and submitted his written statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C stating that the accident occurred due to the m


Conviction under IPC and Motor Vehicles Act requires clear proof of negligence; mechanical defects impacting vehicle control provide grounds for reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in evidence justified acquittal in a criminal case.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove rash and negligent driving and causation beyond reasonable doubt in cases involving fatal accidents....
The prosecution must prove negligent conduct beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts can lead to acquittal for criminal charges, even if other offenses are upheld.
Res ipsa loquitur applies to unexplained vehicle deviation from road, shifting negligence burden to driver; revisional jurisdiction limited, no reappreciation absent perversity.
A conviction under criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which was lacking in this case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Prosecution must establish clear evidence of guilt; procedural failures can lead to reversal of convictions.
The court affirmed the conviction for rash driving based on sufficient evidence, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.