The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence for rash and negligent driving under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The Court upheld the adverse findings, stating the prosecution successfully proved guilt through consistent eyewitness testimony.
Petition dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.RP No. 308 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRL.R.P. NO. 308 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
NARASIMHAIAH S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O CHIKKABETTAHALLI VILLAGE YALAHANAKA HOBLI BANGALORE - 560 063.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAMAKRISHNA, AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
Digitally signed by B A KRISHNA KUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE PEENYA TRAFFIC POLICE STATION BANGALORE, REP. BY. S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCES PASSED BY THE MMTC-III, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.335/2008, DATED:27.11.10 AND THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO.893/10 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC-VIII, BANGALORE, DATED:9.4.14 BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.11.2010 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate,
CRL.RP No. 308 of 2014
Traffic Court-III, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.335/2008 and the judgment and order dated 09.04.2014 passed by the Fast Track Court No.VIII, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.893/2010.
CRL.RP No. 308 of 2014
punishable under Sections 279 & 337 IPC. Subsequently, the injured B.N.Ramesh had succumbed to the injuries in the hospital, and therefore, Section 304-A IPC was also invoked against the petitioner and the police after investigation had filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC.
CRL.RP No. 308 of 2014
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, the petitioner had filed Crl.A.No.893/2010 before the Appellate Court, which was dismissed on 09.04.2014. It is in this factual background, the petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition.
CRL.RP No. 308 of 2014
driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident, and therefore, the courts below were fully justified in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offences, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the revision petition.
CRL.RP No. 308 of 2014
M.S.Ramaiah Hospital in a ambulance belonging to Bata Company. Thereafter, within a period of one hour, he had lodged a complaint, on the basis of which, FIR was registered against the petitioner. He has also deposed that between 8 to 9 a.m. on the very same day, the police had come to the spot and spot mahazar was conducted. He has also stated that on the same date, Ramesh had succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. He has stated that he was standing in front of Abhimani Prakashana after completing his duty and deceased was coming in his motor cycle for attending the duty in the very same company where PW-1 was employed. Therefore, the presence of PW-1 in the said locality cannot be doubted.
CRL.RP No. 308 of 2014
Merely, for the reason that PWs-1 to 3 are the co-workers of the deceased, it cannot be said that they are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be relied upon by the prosecution. Undisputedly, the accident has taken place outside the Bata Company and PWs-1 to 3 have stated that they had come out after finishing their duty, whereas deceased was on his way to attend the duty. Therefore, the presence of PWs-1 to 3 near the spot is quite natural and probable.
CRL.RP No. 308 of 2014
driver of the vehicle in question as on the date of accident and he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which is established by the evidence of PWs-1 to 3. The courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of guilt against the petitioner for the alleged offences and unless the petitioner is able to point out to this Court that the said finding of the courts below is either perverse or illegal, this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdictional cannot interfere with the said findings. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are just and sound and it does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
KK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the findings of the courts below that the petitioner drove a bus rashly and negligently causing the death of the victim.
Whether the testimony of the three eye-witnesses who happened to be co-employees of the workplace is unreliable due to their being interested witnesses.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Narasimhaiah S/O Rangappa
State of Karnataka
S Vishwa jith Shetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
