- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7708 CRL.RP No. 1368 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1368 OF 2021 BETWEEN: PALAKSHAIAH S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O KALLUSHETTIHALLI VILLAGE, KIBBANAHALLI (HO) TIPTUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 201 …PETITIONER (BY SRI A N RADHA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DANDHINA SHIVARA POLICE TUMKUR DISTRICT REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B, ASPP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC TURUVEKERE, CONVICTING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.279, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7708 CRL.RP No. 1368 of 2021 304(A) OF IPC IN C.C.NO.583/2015 DATED 07.09.2020 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 This petition is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.09.2020 passed in C.C.No.583/2015 and confirming the same in Crl.A.No.10003/2020 dated 28.10.2021. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that this petitioner on 10.09.2015 at about 3.00 p.m. drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the pedestrian – Hanumamma who was proceeding on the very same road, as a result, the victim who aged about 80 years passed away. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7708 CRL.RP No. 1368 of 2021 investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet and accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and hence, the prosecution mainly relies upon the evidences of PW1 to PW6 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P14 and accused was subjected to 313 statement and he did not lead any defence evidence. 4. Having considered the material on record, it discloses that that the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW1 who is the son of the deceased and PW2 is the eye witness and PW3 is the owner of the tractor who also deposes that this petitioner was driving the tractor on the date of incident and other witnesses are mahazar witnesses and IO. Having considered the material on record, the Trial Court convicted the accused and imposed Rs.10,000 with two years imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and Rs.1,000/- with six months imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and the said judgment of the Trial Court was confirmed by the First Appellate Court by re- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7708 CRL.RP No. 1368 of 2021 appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts fail to take note of the material on record since the evidence of PW1 is none other than son of the deceased; PW2 also the relative of PW1. PW3 admits in his cross-examination that they are the relatives. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the victim was aged about 80 years at the time of incident and specific defence was taken that on account of age factor, the victim had fell down and sustained injury and this petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the said fact has not been appreciated by the Trial Court. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State would vehemently contend that when PW1 and PW2 are the eye-witnesses to the incident, their evidence is credible and nothing is discredited in the cross- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7708 CRL.RP No. 1368 of 2021 examination of PW1 and PW2. PW3 is also the owner of the tractor and he says that this petitioner was driving the vehicle on the date of incident and hence, it does not require any interference. 7. In reply to the arguments of the counsel for the State, the counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that this Court can take lenient view considering the age of the deceased i.e., 80 years at the time of the incident and the age of the petitioner is about 42 years at the time of the incident and even this Court can modify the order and direct the petitioner to pay the compensation instead of undergoing for imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court. 8. 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 consideration of this Court are; - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7708 CRL.RP No. 1368 of 2021 1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC and the First Appellate Court committed an error in confirming the order of the Trial Court and whether this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction? 2. What order? Point No.1: 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that there are charges leveled against the petitioner that on 10.09.2015, at about 3.00 p.m. he drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the victim who was proceeding on the very same road, as a result, she succumbed to the injuries. The witness PW1 is the son of the victim and PW2 is also eye-witness who supports the case of the prosecution and PW3 also not disputes the fact - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7708 CRL.RP No. 1368 of 2021 that this petitioner was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and having considered the sketch which is marked as EX.P7, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts in considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Taking into note of the conviction and sentence is concerned, the Trial Court committed an error invoking Section 279 of IPC when the ingredients of Section 279 of IPC merges with serious offence of Section 304A of IPC and ought not have convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 279 and hence, sentence and conviction in respect of Section 279 of IPC requires to be set aside. However, taking into note of the fact that the accident had taken place in the year 2015 and victim was aged about 80 years at the time of the accident, it is appropriate to modify the sentence enhancing the fine to Rs.1,50,000/- as against Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and the said amount is payable within six weeks in favour of PW1 who is the son of the deceased on proper identification since it is an accident, not an - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7708 CRL.RP No. 1368 of 2021 intentional act. Hence, I answer the above point as partly in the affirmative. Point no.2 10. In view of discussions made above, I pass the following ORDER The revision petition is allowed in part. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.09.2020 passed in C.C.No.583/2015 passed by the Trial Court is modified enhancing the fine amount to Rs.1,50,000/- as against Rs.10,000/- in respect of the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and sentence of two years is set aside in view of enhancing of fine amount. The order of conviction and sentence in respect of offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to refund the fine amount to the petitioner if deposited in respect of the offence punishable under Section 279 of IP on proper identification. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7708 CRL.RP No. 1368 of 2021 The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Trial Court is directed to release the amount in favour of PW1 who is the son of the deceased on proper identification. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN