DATED.19/12/2011, PASSED BY THE CIVIL & ADDL. J.M.F.C COURT

AT

BHADRAVATHI

IN

C.C.NO.2743/2005

AND

ACQUIT

PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Digitally

signed by N

UMA

Location:

HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

- 2 -

ORDER

1.

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the

petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 19.12.2011 in C.C.No.2743/2005 on

the file of the Court of Civil Judge and Additional JMFC,

Bhadravathi and its confirmation judgment and order dated

20.08.2014 in Crl.A.No.1/2012 on the file of the Court of Fast

Track at Bhadravathi, has filed this revision petition seeking to

set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below,

wherein the petitioner / accused is convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 160(2) of Indian Railways Act (for

short ‘Act’).

2.

The petitioner is the accused before the Trial Court

and appellant before the Appellate Court.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

3.

It is the case of the prosecution that, on

19.03.2005 at about 10.50 p.m., the accused/petitioner being a

driver of lorry bearing its registration No.KA-35-1118 driven the

same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against L.C

Gate No.34 situated at Kadadakatte, as a result of which, boom

- 3 -

of the gate was damaged and thereby, the petitioner caused

loss to the tune of Rs.12,600/-. It is alleged in the complaint

that, after the accident, the petitioner did not stop the vehicle

and went away. A complaint came to be lodged by the guard,

based on the complaint, FIR came to be registered against the

accused, for the offence punishable under Section 162(2) of

Indian Railways Act.

4.

To

prove

the

case

of

the

prosecution,

the

prosecution examined, in all, ten witnesses, namely PWs.1 to

10 and got marked Exhibits P1 to 23. The accused examined

himself as DW.1 and another witness as DW.2. The Trial Court

after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on

record, convicted the petitioner for the offence stated supra.

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an

appeal before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court

confirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial

Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has

preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the

concurrent findings.

- 4 -

5.

Heard Shri Karthik Yadav.U, learned Amicus Curiae

for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Rai, learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

6.

It is the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae

that, the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below in

recording the conviction of the petitioner is erroneous,

inappropriate and against to the principles of law and evidence

on record, hence, the conviction required to be set-aside.

7.

It is further submitted that, the Trial Court and the

Appellate Court committed error while convicting the petitioner

based on the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3. PW1 is a hearsay

evidence and PW3 is a guard, who was stated to be on duty on

the date of alleged incident. The evidence of PW3 indicates

that, he has seen the driver of the lorry on the date of incident.

However, the evidence of DW.2 discloses that the petitioner

was not the driver as on the alleged date of incident. The

evidence of DW.2 assumes greater significance, since he is the

owner of the lorry stated to have caused the accident.

8.

It is his further contention that, the evidence of

DW.2 should have been considered by the Trial Court while

- 5 -

appreciating the evidence. It is his further contention that, the

motor vehicle report which is marked as Ex.P14 discloses that

no visible damages found on the lorry. The Trial Court and the

Appellate Court committed an error in appreciating the

evidence of PW.1, PW.3 and DW.2. Hence, the learned Amicus

Curiae prays this Court to interfere in this matter and s