IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 885 OF 2017 BETWEEN:

SRI SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O SRI GOPALA DRIVER R/AT RIGHT SIDE OF HOSAMANE

4^TH CROSS BHADRAVATHI TOWN SHIMOGA - 577 301 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANNARAYAPATNA RURAL POLICE IN THE HIGH COURT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSEUTOR Digitally BANGALORE - 560 001 signed by R MANJUNA THA …RESPONDENT Location: (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

HIGH COURT OF THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE KARNATAKA ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28.07.2017 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, SITTING AT CHANNRAYAPATNA IN CRL.A.NO.29/2017 AT ANNEXURE-A CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHANNARAYAPATNA IN C.C.NO.1522/2014 DATED 04.01.2017 AT ANNEXURE-B CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR TEH OFFENCE P/U/S 279 AND 304(A) OF IPC AND TO SET AT LIBERTY THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Sri.Venkatesh R. Bhagat, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.1552/2014 which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.29/2017 is the revision petitioner.

3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

3.1. In respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on

27.02.2014 at about 8.30 p.m., when Ramesh was proceeding on the footpath on Arsikere to Channarayapatna Road, near Kurikavalu Gate, accused being the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-14/B-0948 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against said Ramesh whereby he succumbed on his part on account of the injuries sustained in the said road traffic accident.

3.2. Incident was reported to P.W.1 over telephone to the jurisdictional police and later on written complaint was obtained by the police in the hospital.

4. Police after registering the case, thoroughly investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and

304A of IPC.

5. On receipt of the charge sheet, presence of the accused was secured and plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined seven witnesses as P.W.1 to 7 among them P.W.1 is the complainant and owner of the lorry is P.W.5.

7. Complainant and P.W.2 have supported the case of the prosecution in toto and owner of the lorry specifically deposed before the Court that lorry was driven by the accused as on the date of incident and he has identified the signature on the indemnity bond.

8. P.W.3 is an independent witness who has also supported the case of the prosecution stating that at about 8.30 p.m. on 27.02.2014, near Kurikavalu gate, accident has occurred and lorry was stopped 20 meters away from the place of incident and accused ran away from the place of incident.

9. Detailed cross-examination of P.W.1, 3 and 5 did not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve their version about the incident.

10. On conclusion of recording of the evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances.

11. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties in detail and convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and imposed one year imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and three months imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section

279 of IPC ap