1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.339/2012

BETWEEN

RAJASHEKARAIAH

S/O LATE CHIKKANNA

HINDU, AGED 49 YEARS

R/AT NIJAGAL KEMPOHALLI

SOMPURA HOBLI

NELAMANGALA TALUK

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI T C SATHISHKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE BY GUBBI POLICE

TUMKUR DISTRICT

&RESPONDENT

(BY SRI V.S.VINAYAKA, HCGP)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENTS OF BOTH THE

COURTS PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,

GUBBI IN C.C.NO.395/08 ORDER DATED:30.9.11 AND THE

ORDER DATED:23.1.12 PASSED BY THE FTC-II, TUMKUR

IN

CRL.APPEAL

NO.94/11

BY

ACQUITTING

THE

PETITIONER.

2

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON

FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Heard Sri T.C.Sathishkumar, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner and Sri V.S.Vinayaka, learned High

Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and

perused the records.

2.

This Revision Petition is filed against the order

of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.395/2008

dated 30.09.2011, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal

No.94/2011, on the file of the Fast Track Court No.II at

Tumkur.

3.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

The

Revision

Petitioner

faced

trial

in

C.C.No.395/2008 for the offences punishable under

Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC, whereby he was convicted

for the aforesaid offences and ordered to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence

punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC with fine of

3

Rs.1,000/-, which was confirmed by the First Appellate

Court. The contents of the charge sheet reveals that on

01.04.2008, in a road traffic accident involving motorcycle

bearing No.KA-06-Y-3179 and lorry bearing No. KA-01-

C-8177, the rider of the motorcycle namely Basavaraja lost

his life. Police after registering the case, laid a charge

sheet against the Revision Petitioner for the aforesaid

offences. Since, the Revision Petitioner did not plead

guilty, trial was held. In order to prove the case of

prosecution, the prosecution examined in all five witnesses

as PWs.1 to 5 and relied on six documentary evidence

which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to 6.

Timmaraj Prameela, Nataraju and Girish are examined.

Girish-PW.5 being the owner of the lorry deposed before

the

Court

that

he

got

released

the

vehicle

and

accused/Revision Petitioner is the driver of the lorry, which

met with an accident. However, in the panchanama, it has

been mentioned that there was a damage caused to the

lorry and headlight of the lorry was also damaged.

Whereas, the IMV report which is not marked by

4

examining the author of IMV report did not reveal any

visible damages to the lorry. However, without examining

the author of the IMV report as well as Investigation

Officer, the learned Magistrate based on the materials

available on record, convicted the accused and the same is

confirmed by the First Appellate Court without bestowing

its attention to the contradictions available on record

especially in the charge sheet papers.

4.

Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner

Sri T.C.Sathishkumar, vehemently contended that the

valuable right of the accused is lost by non-examining the

author of IMV report as well as the Investigation Officer

and since the IMV report is on record which forms the part

of the charge sheet papers, the right of the accused is lost

in cross examining the Investigation Officer, who has filed

the charge sheet against the accused when there are

contradictory materials collected by the Investigation

Officer himself and sought for remanding the matter for

fresh consideration in accordance with law by setting aside

the impugned orders.

5

5.

Per contra Sri V.S.Vinayaka, learned High

Court Government Pleader supported the imp