- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4188 CRL.RP No. 1115 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1115 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. GANESH RAO S/O K. PRATAP RAO AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS DOOR NO.12/13, AGRABAIL HOUSE, JODUMARGA, B.MOODA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUKA D.K. DISTRICT-574 211. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVINDRA B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KADABA POLICE STATION, PUTTUR, D.K. – 574 221 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 23.06.2015 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR, D.K., IN C.C.NO.1147/2012 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4188 CRL.RP No. 1115 of 2016 05.07.2016 PASSED BY TEH V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K. IN CRL.A.NO.5018/2015 (CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 338 AND 304(A) OF IPC) AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM. 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 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that on 18.03.2012 at 4.20 p.m., the accused being the driver of Maruthi 800 car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life, when he reached near Annadka Gandi Sanka located at Kunthoor Village, Puttur Taluk, lost control over the vehicle, took the vehicle to extreme right side to his direction, dashed against the bridge, caused capsize of vehicle under the bridge, resulting simply injury to C.W.3-Varshitha and caused injuries to C.W.2- Pushpa and Kum. Varsha and accused. Subsequently, Kum. Varsha succumbed to the injuries sustained by her, on the same day evening at hospital. The C.W.1, Radhakrishna, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4188 CRL.RP No. 1115 of 2016 who was passer by at the relevant time of accident went and lodged the complaint and police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet and the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. 3. The accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and he was subjected to 313 statement and did not lead defence evidence. The Trial Court considering the prosecution evidence and the defence evidence, comes to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of the petitioner and even considered the defence evidence in paragraph No.13, wherein he categorically admitted that the road is 100 to 150 feet straight road and the driver is able to see the moving vehicles and he could see the on coming vehicles in front of his vehicle and the moving of cattle from a distance of 100 feet from front. Having taken note of the defence as well as the evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for all the offences and maximum sentence given is six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4188 CRL.RP No. 1115 of 2016 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5018/2015 and the First Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and particularly the defence evidence, comes to the conclusion that if really, accused was not driving the car with speed and if the accused was driving the car in controllable speed, definitely he could have stopped the vehicle by applying brake. Of course in Ex.P3-tyre marks are showed on the mud road, but not averted the accident and not stopped the vehicle from going to the bridge. If not the speed of vehicle, but negligence plays important role for the accident. In this case, nothing on the side of accused to show that he has exercised due care and caution while driving the vehicle prior to the accident and in detail discussion was made and also taken note of the said fact in paragraph No.22 and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present revision petition is filed before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts failed to consider the material on record and petitioner has also led his defence - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4188 CRL.RP No. 1115 of 2016 evidence and clearly deposed before the Court, how the accident has taken place, since he took the defence that cow came across the vehicle and as a result, he could not avoid the accident and took the vehicle on the right side and hit the bridge and the same has not been appreciated by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the matter has been settled between the parties and rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (CRIMINAL) NO.11041 OF 2024 in GEORGE VS. STATE OF KERALA, wherein the Apex Court taking note of the accident has taken place 26 years ago and also considering the fine amount and he has been in custody for about 117 days, modified the sentence to the period already undergone and also reduced the compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs to Rs.50,000/-. 7. Learned counsel also relied upon the order passed by the Apex Court in CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2719 OF 2023 arising out of SLP (CRL) NO.5084/2022 dated 05.09.2023 in ELANGOVAN VS. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4188 CRL.RP No. 1115 of 2016 POLICE. The Apex Court taking note of the submission made, observed that considering the nature of offence and character of the offender, in our opinion, it would be expedient to release him and instead of sentencing him to punishment, admonished him, sustaining the order of conviction under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC, but set aside the sentence by which he has been directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. The Apex Court directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to the victim’s kin. A sum of Rs.2 lakhs had already been deposited with the Registry and the said sum was also released to the kin of the victim upon proper identification and remitted directly to his account. Learned counsel referring this judgment would vehemently contend that when the Apex Court has admonished the sentence and directed to pay the compensation to the victim, this Court can also impose the compensation. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- State would contend that incidence has taken place in 2012 and in the judgment referred by learned counsel for the petitioner in GEORGE VS. STATE OF KERALA, the accident had occurred 26 years ago and modified the sentence to the period already - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4188 CRL.RP No. 1115 of 2016 undergone, since he was in custody for a period of 117 days and also imposed fine and in other case in ELANGOVAN VS. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, the Apex Court ordered to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. He also would vehemently contend that in the case on hand, in view of rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner, who went and dashed against the bridge, it clearly shows that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and as a result, a girl, who was a minor lost her life and others sustained injuries and the same has been considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and both the Courts taken note of the defence evidence and the evidence of the petitioner has been considered by the Trial Court and reassessed by the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.22 of the judgment. The material discloses that the petitioner could not control the car and was driving the same in a high speed and as a result, vehicle has capsized. Hence, it is very clear that petitioner was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner and it does not require any interference. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State and also taking note of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4188 CRL.RP No. 1115 of 2016 the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GEORGE VS. STATE OF KERALA, wherein he was in custody for about 117 days, the same was modified, observing that we deem it appropriate to modify the sentence to the period already undergone and reduced the compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs to Rs.50,000/- and in the other case in ELANGOVAN VS. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE also referred supra, when punishment was imposed for three months, admonished the sentence directing him to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to the kin of the victim and also taken note of the fact that an amount of Rs.2 lakhs was already deposited with the Registry and deposit of additional amount of Rs.1 lakh was ordered. 10. Having taken note of the material on record, particularly prosecution evidence and defence evidence, the theory of the defence was not accepted by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and the same is considered by the Trial Court in paragraph No.13 and the Trial Court taken note of the fact that road was a straight road and anything could be visible from 100 to 150 feet. Hence, the reasoning of the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.22 and the Trial Court in paragraph No.13 cannot be termed as perverse and illegal. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4188 CRL.RP No. 1115 of 2016 However, taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court in GEORGE VS. STATE OF KERALA, the appellant was in custody for 117 days, but in the case on hand, the petitioner is not in custody and in the subsequent case in ELANGOVAN VS. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, the Apex Court ordered for admonishing the sentence and ordered to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to the kin of the victim. Having taken note of the said fact into consideration, in the case on hand, incident has taken place 12 years ago and not as observed i.e., 26 years ago and having considered the fact that an occupant of the car, who is the victim has lost her life at the beginning of her age and she was a minor and considering the factual aspects of the case, it is appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay the compensation of Rs.3 lakhs as ordered by the Apex Court in the judgment in ELANGOVAN VS. STATE REP. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE in CRL.A.NO.2719 OF 2023 and deposit the same within four weeks from today and the petitioner is admonished of the sentence in view of the judgment of the Apex Court exercising the jurisdiction under Sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4188 CRL.RP No. 1115 of 2016 11. Having taken note of the reasoning given by the Apex Court in the judgment, the sentence of the petitioner is admonished directing him to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to the parent i.e., P.W.2, who is also an injured witness and mother of the victim. 12. With these observations, the revision petition stands disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit the amount within four weeks from today and the same shall be released in favour of P.W.2 on proper identification after defraying an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the State on proper identification. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57