- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6306 CRL.RP No. 764 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.764 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI N CHANDRA S/O L GOVINDA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NARKOLI, HARKUR VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576103 …PETITIONER (BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BRAMHAVARA POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU- 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) 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 16.06.2017 MADE IN C.C.NO.1340/2013 BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. UDUPI AND ETC. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6306 CRL.RP No. 764 of 2022 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 petition is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.06.2017 passed in C.C.No.1340/2013 by the Trial Court and judgment dated 23.03.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.36/2017 by the First Appellate Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The case of the prosecution before the Trial Court that on 05.04.2013 at about 3.15 p.m., accused being a driver of bus bearing Reg. No.KA20-B-4428 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life from Udupi side towards Kundapura and near Kudrubettu, Uppoor village of Udupi taluk, he dashed it to a scooter bearing Reg. No.KA20-E-3443 which - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6306 CRL.RP No. 764 of 2022 was coming from the side of Kundapura towards Udupi, as a result of the accident, rider and pillion rider of the said scooter were sustained grievous injuries and the rider of the said vehicle succumbed to the injuries on 06.04.2013 at about 1.20 p.m. at KMC Hospital, Manipal. The case was registered based on the complaint given by CW1, spot mahazar was drawn and vehicle involved in the accident was seized at the time of investigation. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed. The Trial Court took cognizance and after ordering for registration of case, issued process to accused and accused not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, examined 11 witnesses as PW1 to PW11 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P18. On the other hand, accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence however, he was subjected to 313 statement. The Trial Court considered the evidence of PW1 and PW11 who are the eye-witnesses and accepted the case of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6306 CRL.RP No. 764 of 2022 prosecution since both of them speak that at the time of the accident, bus was coming in a high speed in front of them and deceased was ahead of their vehicle and PW9 is the circumstantial witness who got released the bus from interim custody and he is a power of attorney holder and he deposed that accused was the driver of the offending bus on the date of accident and taking into note of the material on record, the Trial Court convicted and sentence the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was filed and the First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record particularly considering the evidence of PW1 and PW11 and also the contents of the complaint and so also considering the fact that there is no explanation on the part of the accused in 313 statement and also considering the place of accident and mode of the accident and also considering the sketch comes to the conclusion - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6306 CRL.RP No. 764 of 2022 the Trial Court has not committed any error considering the documents produced before it and confirmed the order of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent order of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed. 6. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts have committed an error in considering the admission made by PW1 and PW11 though their evidence is not credible evidence. Apart from that the counsel also contend that in fact the sketch at Ex.P10 establish the left side of the road was closed for construction of road and all the vehicles were moving on the other side of the road, the road width shown in the sketch measures 30 feet and according to the prosecution accident taken place on 22 feet away from the left side of the road that means, another 8 feet road was very much available to a two wheeler and he would driven the vehicle on the extreme left side and same has not been considered by both the Courts. The counsel further - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6306 CRL.RP No. 764 of 2022 submits that the injured is not examined before the Trial Court. Hence, this Court has to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State would vehemently contend that motorcycle was coming in the opposite direction and bus was proceeding from Kundapura to Udupi and PW1 who is an eye-witness categorically deposed regarding the manner in which the petitioner driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle and PW11 is also another eye-witness who was coming behind the deceased wherein he categorically deposed that driver of the bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. Part from that PW3 and PW4 are the doctors one who treated the injured and another one who conducted post mortem of the deceased and PW6 is IMV inspector who speaks about the IMV report and PW9 is the GAP holder of the RC owner of the offending bus who got released the bus and he also categorically says that on the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6306 CRL.RP No. 764 of 2022 date of accident, the petitioner was driving the bus and the counsel contend that having considered the material on record, both the Courts rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner and hence, it does not requires interference of this Court. 8. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also considering the material on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: 1. Whether both the Courts committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC and whether this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction? 2. What order? Point No.1: 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the specific case of the prosecution - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6306 CRL.RP No. 764 of 2022 is that the revision petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle which was coming in the opposite direction, as a result, the rider of the motorcycle succumbed to the injuries and pillion rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries. The prosecution also relies upon the evidence of PW1 who is an eye-witness and PW1 deposed that on 05.04.2013, he was proceeding in the motorcycle from Bramhavara towards Uppuru and when he was near the Laxmi bar, bus came from Udupi side towards Bramhavara in a rash and negligent manner and at that time, deceased and injured Prashanth were proceeding from Bramhavara towards Udupi and the driver of the bus came towards right side and dashed against the motorcycle and as a result, both of them have sustained injuries and rider of the vehicle succumbed to the injuries. PW1 was subjected to the cross examination wherein he deposed that he witnessed the accident at the distance of 20 meters and immediately after witnessing the accident, he went to the spot and there are 30 persons were gathered there and he also - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6306 CRL.RP No. 764 of 2022 categorically admitted that at the time of the accident, vehicles are moving in one road since there was a work in progress in other road and he also identifies the accused. 10. 10. The other eye-witness is PW11 who also categorically says that motorcycle was proceeding ahead of him and at that time bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle and also he admits in the cross-examination that accident was occurred on the left side of the road that is Bramhavara towards Udupi and motorcycle was not comes under the wheel of the bus but and he categorically denies the suggestion that motorcyclist came towards the right side and also denies the suggestion that bus was proceeding in slow manner. 11. Having considering the evidence of PW1 and PW11 and also the document at Ex.P10, it is clear that width of the road is 30 feet and bus came in a opposite direction and accident was occurred at the distance of 22 feet on the side of the bus and motorcycle was on the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6306 CRL.RP No. 764 of 2022 other side at the distance of 8 feet from the edge of the road. Ex.P10 also not disputed and apart from that IMV report also marked as Ex.P11 which clearly discloses the damages caused to the bus as well as motorcycle. Having considered the evidence of PW1 and PW11 and documentary evidence, it is very clear that driver of the bus went on the right side of the road even though there was a 22 feet road on his direction and dashed against the motorcycle. Having considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the very contention of the counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts committed an error in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record cannot be accepted when the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court taken note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in a proper perspective having taken note of some photographs at Ex.P3 and P4 which depicts the place of accident. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of Trial Court with regard to the accident is concerned. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6306 CRL.RP No. 764 of 2022 12. However, taking into note of conviction and sentence is concerned, the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC since the ingredients of Section 279 merges with serious offence of Section 304A of IPC and hence, the Trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentence the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and hence, it requires interference. 13. However, considering the order of conviction and sentence in respect of Section 338 of IPC is concerned, the Trial Court imposed three months of simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in respect of Section 304A of IPC is concerned, the Trial Court imposed only one year imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-. Having considered the factual aspects of the case, the accident was occurred in the year 2013 that means, more than a decade and same could be reduced to six months by increasing the fine amount since the Trial Court only - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6306 CRL.RP No. 764 of 2022 imposed Rs.1,000/-. Hence, the accused is ordered to pay fine of Rs.75,000/- and same is payable to the parents of the deceased on proper identification. Hence, I answer the above point accordingly. Point No.2: 14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following ORDER The revision petition is allowed in part. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.06.2017 for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC is set aside and the conviction and sentence in respect of offences punishable under Sectiond 338 and 304A of IPC is upheld and sentence is modified reducing the same to six months instead of one year increasing the fine amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.75,000/-. Out of Rs.75,000/-, Rs.70,000/- is payable to the mother of the deceased if she is alive or otherwise to the father if he is alive. If parents are not alive, pay the amount to the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:6306 CRL.RP No. 764 of 2022 family members of the deceased on proper identification within six weeks from today. The remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall vest with the state. If fine amount is not paid within six weeks, the order of the Trial Court subsists with regard to sentence also. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN