IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. DESAI

Crl.R.P. No.1279/2011

BETWEEN :

S. Suresh

Aged about 25 years,

S/o Narasaiah,

P.K. Colony,

Chikkaveeranna Road,

N.R. Mohalla,

Mysuru.

...Petitioner

(By Sri. Lokesh D.K, Advocate)

AND

State of Karnataka,

By N.R. Traffic Police Station,

Mysuru.

Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,

High Court Building,

Bengaluru - 560 001.

&Respondent

(By Sri. Thejesh P, HCGP)

- 2 -

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under section

397 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated

25.04.2011 passed by the II Addl. Dist. And S.J, Mysuru in

Crl.A No.87/2010 and order dated 26.05.2010 passed by

the III JMFC, Mysuru in C.C No.393/2008.

This petition coming on for Hearing, this day, the

Court made the following:

O R D E R

This revision petition is filed under Section 397 and

401 of Cr.P.C, assailing the order passed by learned II Addl.

District and Sessions Judge at Mysuru in Criminal Appeal

No.87/2010 dated 24.10.2011 and the Judgment passed by

the JMFC Magistrate, Mysuru in C.C No.393/2008 dated

26.05.2010 wherein the petitioner/ accused is convicted for

the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2.

Brief case of the prosecution is that on

23.10.2007

at

6.00

p.m.,

when

the

deceased

-

Chinnakanna was walking with other persons from RMC

circle to railway station at Mysuru, the accused drove the

- 3 -

autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-10-7724 in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed against Chinnakanna. As

a result, Chinnakanna fell down and sustained injuries. He

was admitted to the hospital, but he succumbed to the

injuries

on

the

same

day.

After

investigation,

the

Investigating officer filed chargesheet against accused for

the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC

and Section 134(a) and (b) r/w 187 of Indian Motor

Vehicles Act.

3.

The prosecution examined 10 witnesses as PW1

to PW10 and got marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to P13.

4.

After

hearing

the

arguments,

the

learned

Magistrate convicted the accused for offences punishable

under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC, but acquitted him for

the offences punishable under Section 134(a) and (b) r/w

187 Indian Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by the same,

petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.87/2010 before the

- 4 -

learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru. By

Judgment dated 25.04.2011, the learned Sessions Judge

dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment passed

by the trial Court. Assailing the confirmation of said

judgment of conviction and sentence by sessions court, this

revision petition is filed.

5.

Heard Sri. Lokesh D.K, learned counsel for

petitioner and Sri. Thejesh P, learned HCGP for respondent

- State.

6.

Perused the trial Court records, evidence and

also Judgment of both the Courts. It is evident that accident

dated 23.10.2007 at 6.00 p.m is not disputed by the

accused. The identification of accused is also not disputed.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that

though the prosecution examined PW2 to PW5, but there is

no evidence regarding rash and negligent driving by the

accused. Learned counsel also pointed out, the reasoning

- 5 -

given by the learned Sessions Judge and learned JMFC and

submitted that the said reasoning cannot be accepted as

driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner by

accused. The learned counsel argued that both Judgments

are illegal and perverse and needs interference by this

Court and prays to allow this revision petition and set aside

conviction.

8.

Learned HCGP argued that the prosecution

examined 10 witnesses, out of that PW2 to PW5 evidence

clearly indicates that the accused drove the vehicle in rash

and negligent manner and caused accident. The sketch map

of scene of offence indicates that the accused was driving

autoric