Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 647
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G. BASAVARAJA, J.
Allabakshi R. Nadaff, S/o. Rajesab – Petitioner
Versus
State, By Traffic Police, Chitradurga, Represented By Special Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 654 of 2017
Decided On : 09-06-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Revision Petition
Act Referred
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT: S.146, S.187, S.196
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.161, S.313
Headnote
(B) Evidence - Credibility of eyewitnesses and procedural lapses by the investigating officer - Testimony of eyewitnesses was discredited due to their relationship with the deceased and inconsistencies in their statements. Absence of key documentary evidence raised doubts on the prosecution's case. (Paras 10, 15, 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for causing the death of a motorcyclist through negligent driving. The police investigation was criticized for procedural deficiencies, including failure to present key evidence related to the vehicle's owner and insurance.
Findings of Court:
The evidence presented was inadequate to substantiate the charges against the accused, leading to the conclusion that the Trial Court and Appellate Court had erred in their judgments.
Issues: The primary issue was whether there were sufficient legal grounds to affirm the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no credible evidence linking the accused to the offense and highlighted significant investigatory failures that undermined the prosecution's case, warranting reversal of the conviction.
Result: Criminal revision petition allowed; the accused was acquitted of all charges.
For the Petitioner:Sri. S.G. Rajendra Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. M.R. Patil, HGGP
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the revision petition challenges the conviction based on insufficient evidence. (Para 1) |
| 2. details of charges and initial trial process. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. legal arguments about witness credibility. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. the court highlights failures in the prosecution's investigation and evidence presentation. (Para 11 , 17) |
| 5. critique of prosecution evidence and investigation flaws. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 6. final order and acquittal of the accused. (Para 19) |
ORDER :
(G. BASAVARAJA, J.)
Revision Petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chitradurga in C.C.No.1009/2013 dated 23.03.2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) which is confirmed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Crl.A.No.15/2015 dated 01.04.2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision petition are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that the Circle Police Inspector of Traffic Police Station, Chitradurga, submitted the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 304A of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 read with Section 187 , 146, read with Section 196 of the Indian MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (hereinafter referred to as 'IMV' Act for short). It is alleged that on 18.09.2013, in between 9.30 and 9.45 am, the accused being the driver of Toyota Innova Car bearing Registration No. KA-29-M-5157, at Chitradurga on NH-4 drove the same in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, without following the traffic rules and dashed against the motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-16-W-1370. The impact of which is rider of the motorcycle-Tyagarajappa fell down and sustained grievous injuries and later, succumbed to the injuries while taking treatment. The offending vehicle was not having insurance. Thereby the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 279 , 304A of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 read with Sections 187 , 146, read with Section 196 of IMV Act.
4. After filing of charge sheet, the case was registered in C.C.No.1009/2013 and summons was issued against the accused. In response to the summons, the accused appeared before the Court 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 had examined in all 12 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.12 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused had totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and submitted his written statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, but he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 304A of IPC , 1860 read with Sections 187 , 146, read with Section 196 of IMV Act and passed sentence.
6. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused preferred the appeal before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Crl.A.No.15/2015 and the same was dismissed on 01.04.201
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court, the revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition.
8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the impugned judgments are illegal and against the facts and circumstances of the case, besides being arbitrary. PW.2 and PW.3, who are treated as eyewitnesses to this incident, are relatives and known to the deceased. Thus, t
