- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2112 CRL.RP No. 816 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.816 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. M.SURYANARAYANA S/O LATE M RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT RAYALACHERUVU VILLAGE, YADIKLI MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 515455. 2. B KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT B.KOTAPALLI VILLAGE, BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANDHRA PRADESH 515731. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VISHWANATH H M, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BEAGEPALLI POLICE CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI L NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2112 CRL.RP No. 816 of 2020 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 28.03.2019 IN C.C.NO.280/2015 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGEPALLI AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned HCGP appearing for the State. 2. Earlier, this Court wanted to know how much compensation was awarded in favour of victim family. In this regard, the counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A.No.9598/2018. Having perused the said order, it discloses that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.70,000/- as compensation and the same has been challenged before this Court and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2112 CRL.RP No. 816 of 2020 Division Bench of this Court enhanced the same to the tune of Rs.4,17,000/-. The counsel referring this order submits that incident was taken place while taking reverse of the bus near the Daaba. The counsel also contends that there is a negligence on the part of the victim also because while bus was moving behind that means while taking reverse, the victim came under the wheels of the bus and the bus belongs to APSRTC. The counsel submits that APSTRC also withheld the increments of the petitioners who happens to be the driver and conductor of the said bus. The counsel also submits that the incident was taken place long back i.e., ten years ago and no purpose would be served by sending them to undergo for imprisonment and this Court can modify the order of the Trial Court directing them to pay the monetary benefit to the family of the victim and also submits that the petitioners are ready to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each and substaintal justice would be met if the same is considered. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2112 CRL.RP No. 816 of 2020 3. The counsel further submits that while passing the sentence, the submission was made before the Trial Court that accused No.1 said to having two children and parents to take care of and accused No.2 is said to having three daughters to take care of and as such the accused persons are sentenced to undergo for simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.3,000/- each for the offences punishable under Section 304A of IPC and in default, shall undergo an additional period of 15 days simple imprisonment and a term of one month for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days each. Hence, it requires interference of this Court in modifying the order. 4. Per contra, the learned HCGP submits that simple imprisonment is only for three months with a fine of Rs.3,000/- each and State also not filed any appeal and hence, question of interference by this Court does not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2112 CRL.RP No. 816 of 2020 arise. The counsel also would vehemently contend that while taking the reverse, this incident was taken place and conductor would have given the signal while taking the bus in a reverse direction. The petitioners were very negligent and as a result, the victim lost his life and hence, the question of interference does not arise. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are: 1. Whether this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction in view of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners? 2. What order? Point No.1: 6. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.03.2015 at about 1.00 a.m., accused No.1 who is the driver of the bus No.AP02-A-0064 drove the said bus backward towards NH-7 negligently without taking - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2112 CRL.RP No. 816 of 2020 precautions and accused No.2 being a conductor of the said bus did not observe any person behind that bus or give signal to the driver and as a result, the bus hit and the rear wheel of that bus passed over the head and portion of chest of Smt.Utham W/o Venkataraman and lost her life and succumbed to the injuries at the spot in front of Manjunatha Daaba. The prosecution also relies upon the evidence of PW1 to PW6 and documents at Ex.P1 to P15 and the petitioners herein have not led any defence evidence before the Trial Court. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record convicted the petitioners and sentenced to undergo for prison. 7. Now the question before this Court is with regard to the factual aspect is concerned. It is not in dispute that the accident was taken place at 1.00 a.m. and also it is not in dispute that the bus and the vehicle of the victim were parked near the Daaba and petitioner No.1 is the driver and petitioner No.2 is the conductor of the said - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2112 CRL.RP No. 816 of 2020 bus is also not in dispute. The material also discloses that the vehicle was in a starting position and the victim came behind the said bus. Though counsel appearing for the petitioners contend that there is a negligence on the part of the victim also and it is utmost duty and take care of the victim while taking the bus in a reverse direction by the driver and conductor of the bus. It is also taken note of the said fact into consideration that the incident was taken place at the mid night at 1.00 a.m. while taking reverse and the accident was taken place a decade ago. Hence, there is a force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that by imposing heavy fine, the order of the Trial Court may be modified. 8. Having taken note of the said fact into consideration as well as under the circumstances in which the accident was taken place that is while taking reverse of the vehicle and not while proceeding in a highway and both the vehicles were parked near the Daaba in order to attend the nature call making convenience to the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2112 CRL.RP No. 816 of 2020 passengers and the counsel for the petitioners brought to notice of this Court that the Division Bench of this Court enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.4,17,000/- as against the amount of Rs.70,000/- passed by the Tribunal and hence, this Court imposing heavy fine instead of sentencing them to undergo for simple imprisonment for three months, the same shall be met the ends of justice by modifying the order. Accordingly, the above point is answered as partly affirmative. Point No.2: 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 28.03.2019 passed in C.C.No.280/2015 is modified. Instead of undergo for three months simple imprisonment, imposed fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each against the petitioners. Out of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.40,000/- each is ordered to be released - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2112 CRL.RP No. 816 of 2020 in favour of the children of the victim i.e., PW1- Chandramohan (son); daughter – Channamma and one more son - Channarayappa and Rs.70,000/- is ordered to be released in favour of the husband of the victim i.e, Venkataraman on proper identification and remaining Rs.10,000/- is vest with the State. The petitioners are directed to deposit the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each within a month from today. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN