Sunil Vs State by Hullahalli Police Station

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 AND 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION OF SENTENCE AND FINE PASSED ON DATED 04.02.2015 IN C.C.NO.525/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NANJANAGUD AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.12.2015 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.52/2015 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.02.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:12178 CRL.RP No. 454 of 2016

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶19

CAV ORDER

¶20

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence 04.02.2015 in C.C No.525/2013 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C at Nanjangud, wherein the Trial Court convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and under Sections 3(1) and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On appeal being filed, the Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 02.12.2015 in Crl.A.No.52/2015 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and modified the order on sentence passed by the Trial Court.

¶21

The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as per their rankings before the Trial Court for convenience.

¶22

Brief facts of the case:

¶23

It is the case of the prosecution that PW.1 had lodged a complaint stating that on 01.01.2013 at about 2.00 p.m

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12178 CRL.RP No. 454 of 2016

¶25

when he was proceeding on his cycle, he had witnessed the accident that had taken place in the Hullahalli - Rampura Road. Immediately, he arranged the ambulance to take the injured to the hospital and thereafter, he lodged a complaint before the respondent police. The respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.1/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of IPC and Sections 3(1) r/w 181 of Motor Vehicles Act. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet.

¶26

To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked 14 documents as Exs.P1 to P14. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded the conviction for the offences stated supra. On an appeal, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and modified the order on sentence in respect of offence under Section 304-A of IPC by reducing the sentence from 1 year to 6 months, in default of

¶27

4 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:12178 CRL.RP No. 454 of 2016

¶29

payment of fine, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

¶30

Heard Sri.Manjunath N.D, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶31

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are many discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in respect of the accident and the liability of the rider of the vehicle, however, the Courts below have grossly committed an error in recording the sentence, which are required to be set aside. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶32

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader justified the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Courts below and he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below

¶34

5 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:12178 CRL.RP No. 454 of 2016

¶36

in recording the conviction, it is appropriate to have a cursory look upon the evidence of all the witnesses.

¶37

PW.1 said to be the chance witness. He was proceeding towards Hullahalli on his cycle around 1.00 p.m., and he noticed that the accident occurred on the road and he has witnessed the same. According to him, there were two motorcycles involved in the said accident, one motorcycle was being driven by Sunil which was coming from Rampura towards Hullahalli and another vehicle was being driven by Mahadev which was coming from Mysuru side.

¶38

After reading his evidence, it appears that he did not state about the rash and negligent act of the petitioner. Unless, it is specifically stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the ingredients of Section 279 of IPC cannot be attracted. In other words, the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle has to be proved through proper evidence.

¶39

PW.2 - Mahadev was the rider of the motorbike which involved in the said accident. According to him, after the

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12178 CRL.RP No. 454 of 2016

¶41

said accident, the pillion rider of the offending vehicle had sustained grievous injuries and died. He also stated that, he had sustained injuries in the said accident and he

¶42

became unconscious. He admitted in his crossexamination that, he had no valid licence to ride the motorcycle. However, due to the said accident, the pillion rider of which the petitioner was riding the motorcycle had sustained injuries and died. It appears that, as the PW.2 had no valid licence to ride the vehicle, a false case has been registered against the petitioner in order to screen the liability.

¶43

PW.3 is an independent witness said to be pillion rider of accused. According to him, one motorcycle suddenly came across to their motorcycle. The accused said to have applied the brake instantly, hence, he fell down. Thereafter, he became unconscious and he was not aware about the incident.

¶44

On reading of the entire evidence both oral and documentary on record, it appears that none of the witnesses have spoken about the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and also none of the witnesses

¶45

7 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:12178 CRL.RP No. 454 of 2016

¶47

have spoken about on whose fault the accident had occurred. Such being the fact, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court should have extended the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. Having not extended the said benefit resulted in passing the impugned judgments, which are required to be set aside.

¶48

In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

¶51

(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.02.2015 passed in C.C No.525/2013 by the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C at Nanjangud and the judgment and order dated 02.12.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.52/2015 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru are set aside.

¶52

(iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC and under Sections 3(1) and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12178 CRL.RP No. 454 of 2016

¶54

(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.

¶55

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶56

UN List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2 CT:PK

Sunil v. State by Hullahalli Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil v. State by Hullahalli Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil S/O Maruti Kuntenor Vs the State of Karnataka

Mangesh @ Mangya Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahantesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Maruthi G Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Vaman Vs the State of Karnataka

Prakash S/O Kashappa Hulkeri Vs the State of Karnataka