SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 268

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


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Vinod Kumar M., Adv.
For the Respondents: Sri. Venkat Satyanarayan, HCGP.

Conviction under IPC and Motor Vehicles Act requires clear proof of negligence; mechanical defects impacting vehicle control provide grounds for reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 3 read with Section 181 - Revision petition against conviction for causing death and injuries in a vehicular accident - The accused-driver alleged to have driven recklessly resulting in a crash that caused multiple fatalities. The court found inconsistencies in witness testimonies as many did not observe the incident directly and there was evidence of mechanical defect contributing to the accident. Therefore, the trial court's findings were held to lack adequate grounding in the evidence presented. (Paras 2, 6-10, 12-19, 22, 24, 28)

Facts of the case:
The accused was charged after an accident involving a jeep he drove resulted in fatalities and injuries to passengers. Allegations included reckless driving and failure to maintain control of the vehicle. Multiple witnesses testified, some of whom were relatives of victims.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the trial court did not appropriately consider evidence suggesting mechanical failure of the vehicle, leading to a reasonable doubt regarding the accused's culpability.

Issues: The legitimacy of the trial and appellate court's decisions based on evidential considerations and whether sufficient grounds for conviction were established.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's negligence beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given mechanical defect evidence and unreliable witness statements. Accordingly, the presumption of innocence applied, warranting reversal of conviction.

Result: Criminal Revision Petition is allowed; accused acquitted.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top