Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23974
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR. ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J
SRI SIDDARAJU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 998 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MISS POOJA KATTIMANI, AMICUS CURIAE
For the Respondents: SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP
The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for rash driving leading to death; inconsistencies in witness testimonies undermined the case.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279 and 304A - Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 - Section 134(a)(b) and Section 187 - Conviction and Sentencing - Petitioner convicted for rash and negligent driving that resulted in an accident causing death; the prosecution burden of proof not met; inconsistencies in witness testimonies led to a lack of definitive evidence on guilt. (Paras 1-43)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of causing a fatal accident by reckless driving of a KSRTC bus, was convicted in lower courts which was subsequently challenged due to insufficient evidence.
Findings of Court:
The Court found major inconsistencies in testimonies and concluded that the prosecution did not meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt for the charges under IPC sections.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the credibility of witness accounts and whether the prosecution established the negligence of the accused driver.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the evidence did not conclusively prove the accused's negligence; the inconsistencies among eyewitness accounts led to acquittal on the serious charges while modifying the punishment under the IMV Act.
Result: Criminal Revision Petition allowed in part; conviction for IPC charges set aside and a lesser penalty imposed under the IMV Act.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal revision petition challenges conviction and sentence under ipc and imv act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the accident involving the accused and the victim. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments presented by the defense questioning witness credibility. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's analysis and decision on the evidence and inconsistencies leading to the verdict. (Para 35 , 36 , 43) |
ORAL ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed assailing the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 304A and 279 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 134(a)(b) and read with Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 (for short “IMV Act”).
2. The petitioner is convicted to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment for the said offence. For offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, one year simple imprisonment and Rs.5,000/-fine is imposed and additional one month simple imprisonment in case of failure to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.
3. And for the offence punishable under Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of IMV Act, a fine of Rs.1,000/- and also simple imprisonment of one week is imposed, in case of default to pay the fine amount referred to above.
4. On appeal filed by the accused, Appellate Court concurred with the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
5. The alleged incident took place on 17.10.2007 at about 05:15 p.m. at Albert Victor Road in Mysuru. The complaint is lodged by the Traffic Police who was said to be officiating on Albert Victor Road in Mysuru on the date of the incident.
6. Complainant states that P.W.8 - the rider of Honda Activa bike was riding the bike along with her mother towards K.R. Circle and the petitioner - driver of KSRTC bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Honda Activa bike while trying to overtake Honda Activa bike and left side of the bus dashed Honda Activa bike and caused the accident.
7. It is alleged that both the pillion rider (mother of the rider) and the rider of the bike fell down and the pillion rider succumbed to the injuries at the hospital.
8. Accused did not plead guilty. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced 9 documents to substantiate the case. Accused did not lead any evidence on his behalf. As already noticed, the Trial Court convicted the accused rejecting the defence and Appellate Court also concurred with the said finding.
9. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner would submit that P.W.8 who was riding the Honda Activa bike on that day has stated in the cross-examination that she is not in a position to say whether the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of KSRTC bus. In her examination-in-chief, P.W.8 states that the driver of KSRTC bus driver tried to overtake Honda Activa soon after traffic signal turned green. The prosecution has treated P.W.8 - rider of the bike has hostile witness and cross-examined P.W.8. In the cross- examination, P.W.8 has stated that the bus has dashed against Honda Activa bike from the rear side. It is also stated in the cross-examination that before the accident, the rider of the bike i.e., P.W.8 has not noticed the bus coming and she came to know about the bus only after the bus hit the Honda Activa bike.
10. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner would also urge that P.W.9 who is said to be an eye-witness to the incident has not supported the case of the prosecution. She would refer to the cross-examination of P.W.9 and would submit that in the cross-examination, P.W.9 has admitted that there was no traffic signal at the place of accident. P.W.9 has stated that he is not in a position to say as to who was responsible for the accident.
11. P.W.10 - who is said to be the Police Constable has stated in
