- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3346 CRL.RP No. 321 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 321 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MANJUNATH H.R. @ MANJUNATHA S/O RUDRESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.3 1ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS SHARADA NAGARA, VASANTHPURA BENGALURU SOUTH. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SARASWATHI M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHETHAN D.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHELUR POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED AGAINST HIM BY JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 21.08.2023 AND ALSO Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3346 CRL.RP No. 321 of 2024 CONFIRMED BY THE HONOURABLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN CRL.A.NO.92/2023 DATED 04.01.2024 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS CRL.RP BY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER THAT FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the records which are secured before this Court. 2. This revision petition is filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner in C.C.No.42/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and Section 304(A) of IPC. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that on 27.10.2017 at about 10.30 a.m. at Sathenahalli Gate on Chelur-Tumkauru road near Nandini Milk Dairy, when C.W.2 had been to bring milk in the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3346 CRL.RP No. 321 of 2024 said dairy by parking his two wheeler TVS Excel Heavy duty bearing Reg.No.KA-06-U-6882 on left side of the road and the deceased Tarun was sitting on the said two wheeler of C.W.2. Suddenly, accused drove his Tata Indica car bearing Reg.No.KA-50-A-1665 in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life from Chelur towards Tumakuru side and dashed against TVS Excel vehicle and due to the said impact, Tarun fell down and sustained injuries on his head, legs, hands. Next day at about 11.30 a.m., said Tarun succumbed to the injuries. 4. The police have registered the case and recorded the statement of the witnesses and filed the charge sheet and the accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P12. On the other hand, the accused was subjected to 313 statement and he has not led defence evidence. 5. Having considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, who are eye witnesses to the incident and though P.W.3 turned hostile and he was cross-examined, believing the evidence of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3346 CRL.RP No. 321 of 2024 P.Ws.1 to 4 and also documentary evidence of Ex.P10-sketch and Ex.P11-IMV report and also photographs which have been produced as Exs.P3 and P4 comes to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner and convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and Section 304(A) of IPC. 6. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, comes to the conclusion that the defence raised by the accused is that, it is deceased Tarun himself ridden TVS Excel vehicle and dashed against the car, but there is no oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the defence of the accused that he avoided occurrence of the accident. Hence, not accepted the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and comes to the conclusion that the accused has not led any defence evidence to prove the case. Having considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and other witnesses, accepted the case of the prosecution and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3346 CRL.RP No. 321 of 2024 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court not considered the material on record and eye witnesses are close relatives of the deceased and interested witnesses and deceased himself was riding the two wheeler and he contributed to the accident. Learned counsel would contend that it is fault of the complainant’s husband that, he ought to have taken the deceased along with him when he had parked the vehicle besides the main road, where there is a moving of heavy vehicle and the evidence of prosecution is not credible and both the Courts failed to take note of the defence set out during the course of cross-examination. Hence, it requires interference. 8. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent-State would vehemently contend that both the Courts have taken note of evidence of eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 and also taken note of the place of accident and particularly relied upon the documents of photographs of the car Exs.P3 and P4 and also photographs of two wheeler i.e., Exs.P5 and P6 and sketch Exs.P10 and Ex.P11-IMV report and the same corroborates the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3346 CRL.RP No. 321 of 2024 oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. Hence, it does not require interference. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed an error in not considering the material on record and given perverse finding and whether it requires interference by exercising revisional jurisdiction? (ii) What order? Point No.(i) 10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State, the factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that C.W.2 along with deceased had been to purchase milk in the two wheeler TVS Excel, at that time, the driver of Tata India car i.e., the petitioner herein drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the parked vehicle and the boy, who is aged about 9 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3346 CRL.RP No. 321 of 2024 years sustained injuries in the accident and he succumbed to the injuries. The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and no doubt, P.Ws.1 to 4 are relative witnesses of the deceased i.e., uncle and aunt, the Court has to take note of evidence of P.W.3 and he says that about three years back at about 10.30 a.m., when he went to Nandini Milk Dairy to bring milk, he saw Tata Indica car which was driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against two wheeler, TVS Excel and nephew of P.W.1 sustained injuries. He also categorically says that, immediately after the incident, the injured boy was shifted to hospital by the petitioner as well as P.Ws.1 and 2 and he identified the accused and he was treated partly hostile. During the cross-examination, he categorically made the statement before the Investigating Officer and also identified the photographs of the vehicle which was involved in the accident i.e., Exs.P3 to P6. 11. The other independent witness is P.W.4, who is a Computer Operator at Sathenahalli Gate and he also reiterates the averments in terms of the charges made against the petitioner and categorically says that injured Tarun fell down and he himself, P.Ws.1 and 2 and others, including the driver of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3346 CRL.RP No. 321 of 2024 the car rushed to said Tarun, who had sustained injuries and immediately he was shifted to the hospital by this petitioner as well as others who were present at the spot. The Trial Court having taken note of this evidence available on record, though cross-examined in detail, the defence in the cross-examination of this witness is that deceased Tarun himself drove TVS Excel and the same was categorically denied and in order to prove the said defence, the petitioner has not entered into witness box and also not examined any witness, who witnessed the incident of boy himself riding the two wheeler. 12. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court taking note of these material on record, particularly no defence evidence has been led and also in 313 statement of the accused, nothing is stated with regard to the defence which has been taken by the prosecution. All these factors has been appreciated by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that the only defence raised by the accused is that deceased Tarun himself ridden TVS Excel and the said defence is sufficient to support the case. When such being the case, the First Appellate Court taken note of the fact that driver of the car went and hit Tarun, who was sitting on - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3346 CRL.RP No. 321 of 2024 the TVS Excel and though he took the contention that Tarun himself drove the two wheeler, but not examined any independent witness to prove the same. Having reassessed the material on record, no perverse finding is given by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Hence, question of interference by exercising revisional jurisdiction does not arise. The scope of revision is very limited and only if there is in perversity in the finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, then the Court can look into the legality and correctness of the order. 13. Having considered the material on record, I do not find any infirmity in the order. Hence, question of interfering with the order does not arise with regard to the conviction is concerned. However, taking note of the conviction and sentence, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 279 and also 304(A) of IPC. When the ingredients of Section 279 of IPC merges with Section 304(A) of IPC, question of conviction does not arise under Section 279 IPC. However, taking note of the conviction and sentence and imposition of fine of Rs.10,000/- and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, since it is an accident, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3346 CRL.RP No. 321 of 2024 question of imposing rigorous imprisonment does not arise. Having taken note of the fact that the petitioner is aged about 35 years as on the date of the accident and accident has taken place in 2017 and the fact that boy was sitting on TVS Excel is not in dispute, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence from one year to six months. The Apex Court also in catena of judgment has reduced the sentence from one year to six months in a case of 304(A) of IPC, if the gravity of the offence is not severe and the same would meet the ends of justice. Hence it requires interference. Point No.(ii) 14. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) The conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC is set aside and conviction in respect of Section 304(A) of IPC is upheld. However, the sentence is modified as simple imprisonment for six months, instead of rigorous imprisonment for - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:3346 CRL.RP No. 321 of 2024 one year. If any fine amount is imposed the same is not altered. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48