- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1087 CRL.RP No. 1443 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1443 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SHIVARAJ @ SHIVU S/O LAKSHMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS OCC: DRIVER, R/O KODIHALLI VILLAGE KOGUNDI POST CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.J. SUNKAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY RAILWAY POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FIELD U/S 397 R/W SECTION 401 CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 30.11.2017 IN C.C.NO.1719/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC I COURT, DAVANAGERE AND THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 16.09.2019 IN CRL.A.NO.13/2018 ON THE FILE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1087 CRL.RP No. 1443 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and this matter is listed for admission. 2. This revision petitioner is filed against the order of conviction and sentence. The Trial Court convicted and only imposed fine amount and State has filed criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.13/2018 wherein sentence is modified awarding the punishment of 6 months since the Trial Court has not awarded any punishment. Being aggrieved by both the orders, present revision petition is filed. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in his argument would vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in relying upon the evidence of PW3 and PW4 and there are contradictory evidence and also counsel would submits that PW5 and PW6 are panch witnesses who have turned hostile who have not supported the case of the prosecution. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1087 CRL.RP No. 1443 of 2019 3. It is also contended that PW7 and PW8 in the cross-examination categorically stated that they are the hearsay witnesses and PW1 only given the complaint and case has been registered based on the complaint given by PW1 and there is no any credible evidence before the Court and inspite of it, the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and the First Appellate Court also committed an error in reversing the order of the Trial Court with regard to the sentence is concerned and imposed the sentence of 6 months. Hence, it requires interference. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner also submits that if revision petitioner has been appointed as KSRTC driver subsequent to this accident and if the order is confirmed, it will cause prejudice to this interest. Hence, it requires interference. 4. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent-State would submits that the evidence of PW3 and PW4 is very clear that they have witnessed the incident of accident and in causing the accident while - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1087 CRL.RP No. 1443 of 2019 reversing the lorry and also before the Court they categorically identified the petitioner that he was driving the vehicle as on the date of accident and even though PW6 turned hostile, but PW9 evidence is very clear and he also supported the case of the prosecution and document is also very clear with regard to the document IMV report - Ex.P11 as well as the spot and seizure panchanama Ex.P9 and photographs and also Ex.P2 to Ex.P7 discloses about the place of the incident and Ex.P12 is the spot sketch which clearly depicts the place of accident and the same is not disputed and hence it does not requires any interference. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondent that particularly the Trial Court considering the material on record that is evidence of PW3 and PW4 who have witness the accident and they have supported the case of prosecution and also PW9 supported the case of the prosecution though answer elicited from the mouth of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1087 CRL.RP No. 1443 of 2019 PW9 that he did not witness the incident, but the evidence of PW3 and PW4 is very clear with regard to the manner in which the accident was taken place and also deposed before the Court and spot sketch which is marked as Ex.P13 clearly depicts the place of accident. When such being the case, the very contention of petitioner’s that Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner cannot be accepted. The material available on record, clearly discloses the petitioner was driver of the lorry at the time of the accident and the accident was also occurred while taking the vehicle towards reverse. Apart from that PW3, PW4 and PW9 have categorically identified that this petitioner was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Hence, the very contention of the revision petitioner’s counsel cannot be accepted. The First Appellate Court while modifying the judgment taken note of the offence punishable under Section 304A and also minimum sentence of 6 months is imposed and the same commensurate with the gravity of the offence since the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1087 CRL.RP No. 1443 of 2019 victim lost his life on account of negligence and brought up and it does not requires interference. Hence, no ground is made out to admit and the records which have been called from the Trial Court clearly discloses that the material on record was rightly appreciated by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in coming to the conclusion that this revision petitioner only caused the accident. Hence, there are no grounds to admit. 6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42