- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372 CRL.RP No. 200100 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200100 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: HARINATH S/O PEDDAGANGI REDDY, AGE:47 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. APPARCHARVU VILLAGE, TQ. DARMAVARAM, DIST. ANANTAPUR- 586213, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI R.S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH THE SHO., MANAGULI P.S., REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) Digitally signed by SUMITRA SHERIGAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372 CRL.RP No. 200100 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.09.2020 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.22/2020 BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA, IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 09.03.2020 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, COURT, BASAVANA BAGEWADI IN C.C.NO.412/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 AND 304A OF IPC ALONG WITH SECTION 187 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF ALL THE ABOVE NOTED CHARGES. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard learned counsel Sri R.S. Lagali appearing for the revision petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin appearing for the respondent-State. 2. The revision petitioner is accused, who suffered an order of conviction for the offences punishable under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372 CRL.RP No. 200100 of 2020 Sections 397, 304(A) of IPC read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced as under in C.C. No.412/2018: “Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months and to pay a fine of `1,000/- in default of the same shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days for the offence punishable U/Sec. 279 of IPC. Further the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6(six) months and to pay a fine of `5,000/- in default of the same shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) month for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304A of IPC. Further the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) month and to pay a fine of `500/- in default of the same shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7(seven) days for the offence punishable U/Sec. 187 of M V Act. All the sentences shall run concurrently.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372 CRL.RP No. 200100 of 2020 3. Validity of the order of conviction and sentence was questioned before the District Court in Crl.A. No.22/2020. 4. Learned Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of conviction and sentence. 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision. 6. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 6.1 Smt. Shanthibai W/o Paramanand Alur, lodged a complaint with the Managuli Police, contending that on 21.03.2016 in the morning, Paramanand left the house to go to Vijayapura on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/R- 3951. When he had reached near Hunashihal Village, one of the relatives of the complainant by name - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372 CRL.RP No. 200100 of 2020 Chandrasekhar informed the complainant over the telephone that on NH-50 Road near “0” point, a mini lorry dashed the motor cycle of Paramanand and he sustained serious injuries to the head, face and hands and he succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 6.2 After receipt of such information, complainant rushed to the spot and noticed her husband Paramanand has succumbed to the accidental injuries and a mini lorry bearing No.AP-02/TA-5018 was also found near the place of incident. Chandrasekhar Kotli, who witnessed the incident, had also identified the driver of the lorry, who is the revision petitioner. 6.3 Based on the said complaint, Managuli Police registered a case in Crime No.57/2016 for the aforesaid offences. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372 CRL.RP No. 200100 of 2020 6.4 Presence of the accused was secured and after due trial accused came to be convicted and sentenced as referred to supra. 7. The testimony of the eyewitnesses to the incident on non-explanation of the accused for the incident is taken as the basis for connecting the accused. Thereafter, appeal filed by the accused came be dismissed and therefore, the revision petition is filed before this Court. 8. Sri R.S. Lagali, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that Chandrashekhar Kotli is admittedly the relative of the deceased and therefore, his testimony is interested testimony, which has to be appreciated with extra care and caution. Learned trial Judge failed to note the same. Therefore, the conviction of the accused for the aforesaid offence is impermissible and sought for allowing the revision. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372 CRL.RP No. 200100 of 2020 9. Alternatively, Sri R.S. Lagali would contend that in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction, this Court may enhance the fine amount and set aside the imprisonment. 10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin for the respondent-State supports the impugned judgment. 11. He would further contend that material on record has been rightly appreciated by both the Courts below and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 12. Having heard the learned counsels on both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that deceased was the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/R-3951. The accident has occurred on NH-50 Road at ‘0’ point. Offending vehicle is mini lorry bearing No.AP-02/TA-5018. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372 CRL.RP No. 200100 of 2020 13. It is also not in dispute that the revision petitioner was driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. 14. No doubt, the accident was informed to the complainant by one of the relatives, namely Chandrasekhar. He has been examined before the trial Court as PW4. 15. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis merely on the ground of interestedness oral testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be brushed aside in toto. In such circumstances, the Courts are required to exercise extra care and caution to rule out the possibility of the false implication of the accused. 16. In the case on hand, at the time of recording accused statement, the revision petitioner did not submit that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Charge- sheet filed against the accused is also not challenged by the accused. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372 CRL.RP No. 200100 of 2020 17. Further, atleast accused should have placed on record his version about the incident by contending that the accident has not occurred on account of his fault, but on account of the deceased himself. In the absence of such material evidence placed on record, following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RAVI KAPUR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN1 conviction order recorded by the trial Judge, confirmed by the first Appellate Court cannot be interfered by this Court, that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 18. Having said so, it is noticed that the trial Judge has awarded 06 months simple imprisonment for the offence of under Section 304(A) of IPC. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SAURABH BAKSHI2, the 06 months imprisonment for the offence of Section 304-A of IPC cannot be faulted with. 1 (2012)9 SCC 284 2 (2015)5 SCC 182 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372 CRL.RP No. 200100 of 2020 19. However, awarding 03 months imprisonment for the offence of Section 279 needs to be set aside as the offence of Section 279 merges with the higher offence of Section 304-A of IPC. To that extent, the interference is sought for. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The revision petition is allowed in part. ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 279, 304-A, 187 of the Indian Penal Code, the separate sentence of imprisonment of 03 months ordered for the offence under Section 279 of IPC is hereby set aside. iii) Rest of the sentences remained unaltered. iv) Time is granted for the revision petitioner till 30.07.2025 to surrender before the trial Court to serve the balance sentence. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372 CRL.RP No. 200100 of 2020 Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V. SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48 CT:PK