- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4735 CRL.RP No. 253 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 253 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. C. SWAMYGOWDA @ SWAMY S/O. SRI. BORE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT KADABA VILLAGE, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 455. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GAURAV S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRIRANGAPATTANA POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, SPP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W. 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 22.06.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SRIRANGAPATTANA IN C.C.NO.3/2014 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.1.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATTANA) IN CRL.A.NO.5015/2015, CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE REVISION PETITIONER FROM THE CHARGES LEVELLED AGAINST HIM. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4735 CRL.RP No. 253 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed against the conviction and confirmation for the offence punishable under Section 337, 338 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and accused is convicted for the said offences and accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. 3. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that on 3-12-2011 at about 8.45 p.m on Bangalore - Mysore public road, before Balaji garden hotel, at - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4735 CRL.RP No. 253 of 2017 Srirangapatna town, the accused being the driver of the tractor-trailer bearing reg. no.KA.35.T.4673 has negligently parked the said punctured tractor-trailer on the road without putting parking lights and without giving any indication of parking of the said tractor-trailer on the road, as a result of which one Jagadeesha, the driver of the canter bearing reg. no.KA.04.B.7540 has driven the same from the side of Bangalore towards Mysore and dashed the canter to the back portion of the tractor-trailer resulting into accident, as a result of which Jagadeesha the driver of the canter vehicle sustained grievous injuries to both his legs and CW.2 Ravi the cleaner of the canter and CW.3 Chandra one of the loader of the canter have sustained simple and grievous injuries and Jagadeesha injured the driver of the canter vehicle was succumbed to the injuries on the same night at about 11.10 p.m. at K.R. Hospital, Mysore. 4. 4. The Police have registered the case and investigated the matter and filed charge sheet and the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4735 CRL.RP No. 253 of 2017 revision petitioner was secured and he did not plead guilty and hence prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and also got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and this petitioner not lead any defense evidence and Trial Court having considered the material available on record and also eye witnesses who have been examined before the Trial Court convicted the petitioner since even not cross examined the PW1 to PW3 and taking note of the IMV report as well as the sketch comes to the conclusion that accident is on account of negligence on the part of this petitioner. Being aggrived by the said order, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court and First Appellate Court also on re- appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, an appeal Crl.A.No.5015/2015 confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and sentence. Being aggrieved by the said order, filed present revision petition before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for revision petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts have - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4735 CRL.RP No. 253 of 2017 committed an error and counsel for the respondent would contend the Trial Court having taken note of evidence available on record, rightly comes to the conclusion since PW1 and PW2 who are the eye witnesses have categorically deposed the manner in which the accident was taken place and there is no any sign of parking of the vehicle and the same was not parked with indication of parking light and not having any sign of parking of vehicle on the road and also even not cross examined the witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW3. The PW4 is the I.M.V inspector and he inspected the vehicle and given the report and PW5 is the Police Sub-Inspector and PW6 is the mahazar witness and also he had visited the hospital and other witnesses are formal witnesses. 6. Having re-assessed the material also not found any illegality committed by the Trial Court in appreciating the evidence and this Court comes to such a conclusion. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submits that instead of sentencing him Court can impose - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4735 CRL.RP No. 253 of 2017 some compensation to be payable to the family of the victim. 7. The counsel in support of his argument relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of George V/s State of Kerala delivered on 03.09.2024 wherein the Apex Court invoked Section 428 and set off the period he had undergone for a period of 117 days and having taken note of the fact that accident was happened 26 years ago and he was on bail throughout the trial having been in custody for about 117 days after his arrest, modified the sentence of period already undergone and the payment of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- has directed. Having considered he is an old person and aged about 69 years and also having several medical issues, reduced the compensation for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. 8. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Crl.A.No.536/2021 dated 30.06.2021 in a case of Surendran V/s Sub-Inspector of Police wherein a case for 279, 338 and 337 of IPC and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4735 CRL.RP No. 253 of 2017 also taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Prakash Chandra Agnihotri wherein taking note of accident of the year 1972 and also more than 26 years ago, incident was taken place and he was on bail and enhanced the fine amount for the offences punishable under Section 279, 338 and 337 of IPC maintaining the conviction and sentence. 9. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments in those cases incident was taken place 26 years ago, but in the case on hand, incident was taken place in the year 2011 and also having considered the factual aspects, due to the puncture of his tractor he had parked the vehicle without any signal and also the canter which came in the same direction without noticing the parking of the said vehicle, since there was no any sign or parking lights on the tractor which was parked, dashed against him and as a result driver passed away who is aged about 27 years and family of the victim also lost the bread earning member of the family. When such being the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4735 CRL.RP No. 253 of 2017 case, having considered the said fact into consideration and also vehicle was parked on account of puncture of tractor –trailer and also two persons have sustained injuries in the incident instead of imprisoning him to undergo sentence, if compensation is awarded, it would meet the ends of justice. Hence, it is appropriate to maintain the conviction and only sentence is modified and the fine of Rs.10,000/- is enhanced to Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) and the same is payable within six weeks from today. Hence, directed to pay the amount within six weeks without any default. If he commits the default, the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court would be restored and he has to undergo the sentence as ordered earlier. 10. The District Legal Service Authority, Mandya is directed to ascertain whether the deceased is married, if he is married, the compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- is payable to his wife and if he not married and survived with - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4735 CRL.RP No. 253 of 2017 mother or father then both of them are entitled for equally payable for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- each and the same has to be disbursed on proper identification and compensation amount shall reach the kith and kin of the family who lost the person of 27 years old and remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall vest with the State. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38