Maruthi G Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, KAVOOR POLICE STATION, PANAMBOOR CIRCLE, D.K.DISTRICT-575 015. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶15

Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 17.01.2015 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (III COURT), MANGALORE, D.K., IN C.C.NO.2321/2012 MODIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.02.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.50/2015 (CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 338, 304A OF IPC) AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF THE CHARGE LEVELED AGAINST HIM.

¶17

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:</mark>

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:12176 CRL.RP No. 802 of 2017

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶21

CAV ORDER

¶22

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 17.01.2015 in C.C.No.2321/2012 on the file of J.M.F.C., (III Court) Mangaluru, D.K, wherein the Trial Court convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and on appeal being filed before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court by judgment and order dated 15.02.2017 in Crl.A.No.50/2015 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru allowed the appeal in part by confirming the judgment of conviction and modified the order on sentence passed by the Trial Court.

¶23

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

¶24

Brief facts of the case:

¶25

It is the case of the prosecution that on 08.04.2012 at about 5.50 a.m., the accused being the driver of the

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12176 CRL.RP No. 802 of 2017

¶27

KSRTC bus bearing its registration No.KA-01-F-8442 drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed the motorcycle which was being driven by one Roopesh. Consequently, some of the inmates of the bus have sustained grievous and simple injuries respectively. However, the rider of the motorcycle died on the spot due to the fatal injuries. On the basis of the statement of PW.1, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.54/2012 against the accused. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet.

¶28

To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses as PWs.1 to 14 and got marked 24 documents as Exs.P1 to P24. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court rendered the conviction for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. On an appeal being filed, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part by confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and set aside the sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:12176 CRL.RP No. 802 of 2017

¶31

modified the fine amount for the said offences. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking for intervention.

¶32

Heard Sri.Umesh P.B, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.R.B.Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶33

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction are contrary to the evidence on record and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶34

It is further submitted that when there is no evidence in respect of rash and negligent driving, mere accident cannot be termed as rash and negligent act. The Courts below have failed to take note of the contributory negligence of the deceased. Consequently, the impugned judgments have been passed, which are required to be set aside. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶35

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently for the respondent – State justified the

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12176 CRL.RP No. 802 of 2017

¶37

concurrent findings and he further submitted that the inmates of the bus have been examined by the prosecution and they are consistent in their evidence that the bus was being driven from Mangaluru to Kundapura and it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, consequently, the incident occured. Therefore, the Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner is found guilty of the offences stated supra. Hence, interference with the said findings may not be proper and the petition has to be dismissed. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, it is appropriate to have a cursory look upon the evidence of the witnesses.

¶39

PW.1 though has turned hostile, he admitted that there is a flyover in between the road of Mangaluru to Udupi and Udupi to Mangaluru and he stated that he was not aware at whose fault the accident had occurred.

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12176 CRL.RP No. 802 of 2017

¶41

PW.2 supported the case of the prosecution, however, he admitted that he was sleeping when the accident had occurred and he was not aware on whose fault the accident had occurred.

¶42

PW.3 said to be the inmate of the bus, had sustained injuries in the said accident. She stated that she had not identified the driver of the bus and also not aware about the reason for the said accident.

¶43

PW.4 said to be the inmate of the bus. Though he stated that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of the bus, he did not say on whose fault the accident had occurred.

¶44

PW.5 said to be the inmate of the bus had sustained injuries in the said accident. He says that when the bus took a turn towards right, the motorcycle came from the opposite direction and dashed the bus, consequently, the bus fell down into the ditch.

¶45

PW.6 was working as a conductor of the said bus. He also not stated about the rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus.

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:12176 CRL.RP No. 802 of 2017

¶48

PW.7 stated to be the inmate of the bus, said to have seen the accident. However, he says that the accident occurred due to high speed of the bus.

¶49

PW.8 said to be the witness to the mahazar, he supported the case of the prosecution.

¶50

PW.9 was working as Traffic Controller at KSRTC. He stated that he was authorized to get the bus released from the custody of the police. According to him, the accused was driving the bus as on the date of the accident.

¶51

On analyzing the evidence of all the witnesses, it can be inferred that none of the witnesses have spoken about rash and negligent driving. It is needless to say that mere driving the bus in a high speed cannot be termed as negligent act. The prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Section 279 of IPC. The word ‘negligent’ means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the consideration which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person guided by the similar considerations would not do.

¶52

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12176 CRL.RP No. 802 of 2017

¶53

The following conditions are required to be satisfied to attract the ingredients of Section 304-A of IPC. They are: a) There must be death of a person in question;

¶54

b) The accused must have caused such death ;

¶55

c) That such act of the accused was rash and negligent and that did not amount to culpable homicide;

¶56

On reading of the evidence of the witnesses stated supra, the word ‘rash and negligent’ has not been forthcoming in their evidence. However, the accident occurred neither on account of negligent act of the rider of the motorcycle nor the petitioner has not been properly ascertained or determined. Such being the fact, the benefit of doubt could have been extended to the petitioner. However, the Courts below have failed to extend the said benefit, hence, I am of the considered opinion that the findings of the Courts below in rendering the conviction against the petitioner is liable to be set aside.

¶57

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

¶58

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12176 CRL.RP No. 802 of 2017

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

¶61

(ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 17.01.2015 passed in C.C.No.2321/2012 by the J.M.F.C., (III Court) Mangaluru, D.K and the judgment and order dated 15.02.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.50/2015 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru are set aside.

¶62

(iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC.

¶63

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

¶64

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶65

UN, List No.: 19 Sl No.: 4 CT:PK

Maruthi G Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruthi G Naik v. the State of Karnataka

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

Mr. Vaman Vs the State of Karnataka

Sunil Vs State by Hullahalli Police Station

Prakash S/O Kashappa Hulkeri Vs the State of Karnataka