Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 10304
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G BASAVARAJA, J
JAYASHEELA KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.RP No. 1063 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. SHEKHARAPPA H. C
For the Respondents: SRI. M. V. ANOOP KUMAR
The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the driver and any negligent act, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279, 304(A) - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 134(a)(b) - Criminal revision petition against conviction and sentence - Prosecution failed to prove rashness or negligence of the accused, leading to the acquittal of the accused. (Paras 16, 17)
(B) Burden of Proof - The trial court's conviction was based on assumptions and presumptions without establishing who was driving the vehicle, leading to a lack of sustainable evidence. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with offences under IPC and Motor Vehicles Act following a fatal accident. Witnesses failed to identify the accused as the driver, and procedural lapses were noted by the court.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction was set aside due to insufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime, and the prosecution's failure to comply with procedural requirements.
Issues: Whether the judgment of conviction suffers from legal infirmities?
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the prosecution did not establish the identity of the driver or any rashness or negligence, thus rendering the conviction unsustainable.
Result: Revision Petition allowed; the accused acquitted of all charges.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court reviews procedural adherence and evidence evaluation. (Para 1 , 2 , 9 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 2. accident details and prosecution's evidence are insufficient to establish guilt. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. defense argues lack of evidence and procedural failings in prosecution's case. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. conviction based on assumptions without established guilt is unsustainable. (Para 17) |
ORAL ORDER
The accused has preferred this criminal revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bangarpete (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in CC No.668/2008 dated 14.12.2021 for the offence punishable under Section s 279 , 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act , which is confirmed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, (sitting at KGF) (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A. No.4/2022 dated 11.07.2022.
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 is that the Bangarpete Police have laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section s 279 , 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act . It is alleged by the prosecution that on 28.07.2008 at about 5.45 am, when CW1 and CW11 were going for morning walk in front of Gold Field Collage on Bangarpet Main Road, Kolar, one motorcyclist was proceeding from Bangarpet to Kolar. At that time, one Eicher canter bearing registration No.KA-40/A-1359 which was coming from the opposite side, being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the motor cycle, the impact of which the motorcyclist fell and sustained grievous injuries on his head and his left hand was fractured and the driver fled the spot. Immediately CWs1 and 11 rushed to the accident spot and recognized the injured as Ramachandra s/o Narayanappa. He was not in a position to speak. CW1 took the injured to the Government Hospital, Bangarpet in an autorickshaw. Doctor has given initial treatment and suggested to take him to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar for higher treatment. While on the way to Hospital in an ambulance, the injured succumbed to accidental injuries. Thus the accused committed offences punishable under Section s 279 , 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and under Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act . After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the driver of the Canter for the aforesaid offences. In pursuance of the summons, the accused appeared before the trial Court in CC No.668 of 2008. Substance of plea was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined seven witnesses as PWs1 to 7 and marked nine documents as Exhibits P1 to P9. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses appearing against him but he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and under Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act and the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple improvement for ten days; the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.8,000/- for offence punishable under S
