- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3438 CRL.RP No. 200096 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200096 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: NARAYAN S/O DODDA RAMAYYA, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND DRIVER, R/O RAJOLLI VILLAGE, TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-584101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-584106. (THROUGH MANVI P.S.). …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ARATI PATIL, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.10.2020 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR IN CRL.A.NO.43/2017 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 23.10.2017 PASSED BY THE JMFC AT MANVI IN C.C.NO.26/2013 FOR THE Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3438 CRL.RP No. 200096 of 2020 OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279, 304(A) OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. 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) Heard Sri. Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 2. Accused is the revision petitioner, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.26/2013 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’), and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 304A of IPC. 3. The validity of order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.43/2017. Learned Trial Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3438 CRL.RP No. 200096 of 2020 arguments of the parties and by a Judgment dated 21.10.2020, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that, the learned Trial Judge has miserably failed to appreciate the material evidence placed on record and wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. Alternatively, Sri Shivanand Pattanashetti, would contend that, in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, sentence of two years for the offence under Section 304A of IPC may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount and to that extent, the revision petition may be allowed. 7. Per contra, Smt. Arati Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned Judgments by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3438 CRL.RP No. 200096 of 2020 contending that, in the case on hand, the death of Sri. Mallesh is not in dispute as per the postmortem report at Ex.P.6. Sri. Mallesh, who was moving on the motorcycle lost his life. Therefore, the grounds urged in the revision petition cannot be countenanced in law. 8. Further, she contended that, there was no explanation whatsoever offered by the accused in respect of the incident, whereby the trolley of the tractor being driven by the accused, dashed against the motorcycle, resulting in the incident and in the absence of any such explanation, the conviction order needs to be maintained. 9. Insofar as alternative submission is concerned, Smt. Arati, learned High Court Government Pleader, contended that, in the absence of any explanation, learned Trial Judge was justified in granting punishment of two years for the offence under Section 304A of IPC and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, in the case on hand, road traffic accident occurred on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3438 CRL.RP No. 200096 of 2020 31.10.2012 at about 6.30 a.m. on Adavikhanapur-Aroli Road, near the agricultural land of Virupakshappagouda involving a tractor-trailer and a motorcycle is not in dispute. 11. Because of the impact of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on the head and the brain had protruded from the skull and the eyeballs were also protruded from the original position. The accident was reported by an eyewitness to the family members of the deceased. Postmortem report marked at Ex.P.6 makes it clear about the injuries sustained and death is on account of the accidental injuries. 12. Admittedly the revision petitioner was the driver of the tractor and trolley. Police after thorough investigation, filed the chargesheet. Chargesheet is not challenged by the accused. 13. Further, an eyewitness to the incident is a stranger and did not nurture any previous enmity or - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3438 CRL.RP No. 200096 of 2020 animosity as against the accused, has supported the case of the prosecution with graphic details in toto. 14. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Magistrate and the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court were justified in recording an order of conviction against the accused for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. 15. Having said thus, it is to be noticed that as per the photo and the sketch, the trailer of the tractor has hit the motorcycle. That means to say, the tractor had already passed the motorcyclist and it is only the hind side of the trailer, which struck into the motorcycle and then the accident has occurred. 16. Even then, there is a negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor to drive properly expecting that if he steers the tractor, trailer is likely to move sideward and hit the other vehicles on the road. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3438 CRL.RP No. 200096 of 2020 17. Therefore, taking note of these aspects of the matter, maximum punishment of two years for the offence under Section 304A of IPC cannot be sustained and it needs to be reduced to six months following the dictum of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182. 18. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the following: ORDER (a) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (b) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC for a period of two years is reduced to six months. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3438 CRL.RP No. 200096 of 2020 (c) Rest of the sentence stands unaltered. (d) Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court for serving remaining part of the sentence till 30.07.2025. (e) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SVH/RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65 CT:PK