Safiya Malik

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Rajesh Rai K allowed a criminal revision petition and set aside the conviction of a man accused under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was driving in a rash or negligent manner and observed that the key prosecution witness's testimony could not be relied upon. Consequently, the Court directed the acquittal of the petitioner and ordered refund of the fine amount, if any, deposited by him.

The case arose from a road accident that occurred on 14.04.2018 near Ullala Bridge at Nice Road when the complainant and the deceased were returning to Bengaluru from Mysore on a Hero Honda Splendor Plus motorcycle. According to the complaint, while parked on the extreme left side of the road for a nature’s call, a Maruti Suzuki Celerio car driven by the petitioner allegedly crashed into the parked motorcycle, causing fatal injuries to the deceased. The victim was taken to Victoria Hospital but succumbed to his injuries the same day.

Also Read: SC Upholds Cancellation Of Land Allotment To Trust | Terms Defaults A Deliberate Strategy To Evade Payment | Raps UPSIDC For Non-Transparent Allocation Violating Public Trust Doctrine

PW-1, Manohara D.U., lodged a complaint against the driver of the car at Tavarekere Police Station, leading to registration of FIR in Crime No.122/2018 for offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. The Investigating Officer later filed a charge sheet against the accused. The Trial Court, upon securing the accused's presence, framed charges and proceeded with the trial. The prosecution examined five witnesses (PWs 1 to 5) and produced ten documents (Exs. P1 to P10).

On 29.07.2019, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, convicted the accused for both offences. The Court sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 under Section 279 IPC and undergo 15 days simple imprisonment in default. Under Section 304(A) IPC, he was sentenced to two months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000, with a default imprisonment of 1.5 months.

The conviction was challenged in Crl.A.No.100/2019 before the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, who dismissed the appeal on 30.01.2021 and confirmed the trial court’s judgment.

In the revision petition before the High Court, the accused argued that both lower courts failed to properly assess the evidence. The main argument cantered on the reliability of PW-1, who claimed to be an eyewitness. It was pointed out that in cross-examination, PW-1 admitted he came to the hospital after being called by the accused and that the accused had taken the injured to the hospital. Additionally, PW-1 admitted he was not present during the spot mahazar and had signed documents at the police station, raising doubts about his presence at the scene.

The defence also argued that there was no evidence to show rash or negligent driving. PW-1 mentioned the car was at high speed but failed to specify what speed or how it constituted rashness under the law. The defence further noted the postmortem report indicated the deceased had consumed alcohol, possibly contributing to the accident.

Justice Rajesh Rai K considered the facts and evidence and framed the key legal issue: "Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner/accused by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court in CC No.7726/2018?"

The Court stated: "The accident in question on the fateful day which resulted in the demise of deceased B.T. Dilip Kumar on the spot is undisputed." The postmortem report (Ex.P9) confirmed death due to head and fracture injuries from a road accident.

The Court scrutinized the role of PW-1 and stated: "PW.1-purported eyewitness neither located precise place of incident to the police nor was he present at the time of drawing spot mahazar. He further stated that he witnessed the accused and the deceased’s vehicle at the police station... In such circumstances... the evidence of this witness generates doubt... Had PW.1 been physically present on the spot of the incident, then definitely he would have admitted the injured to the hospital."

On the defence claim that the deceased was intoxicated, the Court noted: "On perusal of the postmortem report-Ex. P9, it could be learnt that the remains in the stomach smelt pungent with strong traces of alcohol. In such circumstances, the defence of the accused appears to be probable."

The Court further observed: "Nowhere he stated that the accused’s driving involved traces of rash and negligent disposition." Referring to the Supreme Court judgement in State of Karnataka Vs. Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493, the Court quoted: "Merely because the truck was being driven at a 'high speed' does not be speak of either 'negligence' or 'rashness' by itself... In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of 'rashness' or 'negligence' could be drawn."

In an analytical note, the Court elaborated: "Rashness innately implies to recklessness coupled with a state of conscious breach of duty to care... Rashness and negligence are multi-faceted concepts which cannot be comprehended and interpreted in isolation... it significantly depends on facts and circumstances of each case."

Finally, applying this standard, the Court found: "The prosecution abjectly failed to place cogent evidence and documents to substantiate that the accused drove the car rash and negligently leading to the accident."

Also Read: Preventive Detention Based On Subjective Satisfaction Not Open To Objective Review | Grounds Were Precise And Proximate | J&K High Court Upholds Detention Under Public Safety Act

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the accused. It stated: "The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court in CC No.7726/2018, dated 29.07.2019, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.100/2019 dated 30.01.2021, is hereby set-aside."

The Court further directed: "The petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC." It also stated: "The bail bond executed by the petitioner/accused stands cancelled." The Court instructed that: "The fine amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner/accused shall be refunded to him on due identification."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Sri. Pavan Kumar M.S., Advocate along with Sri. M. Sharass Chandra, Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri. Channappa Erappa, High Court Government Pleader (HCGP)

Case Title: Harish v. State of Karnataka

Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:17717

Case Number: CRL.RP No. 1004 of 2021

Bench: Justice Rajesh Rai K

[Read/Download order]