- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6766 CRL.RP No. 100002 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100002 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PRABHU S/O. BASAPPA LAKKAPPAGOL, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESSMAN, R/O. HIPPARAGI-587311, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, IN JAMKHANDI RURAL STATION, DIST: BAGALKOTE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. 1973, SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 02/12/2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI AT JAMKHANDI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.73/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED 14/11/2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, JAMKHANDI HOLDING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, JAMKHANDI IN CC NO.557/2014 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6766 CRL.RP No. 100002 of 2020 UNDER SECTION 279 AND 304(A) OF IPC AND SECTION 3 R/W. SECTION 181 & SECTION 146 R/W. SECTION 196 OF MV ACT AND TO ACQUIT THE ACCUSED OF THE CHARGES LEVELLED., IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Sri.S.B.Doddagoudar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused, who has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Section 3 read with Section 181, 146 read with Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in C.C.No.557/2014 confirmed in Crl.A.No.73/2018. 3. The accused has been sentence by the trail court as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6766 CRL.RP No. 100002 of 2020 “The accused is found guilty of the offences punishable U/s.279 and 304(A) of IPC and U/s.3 R/W Sec. 181 and Sec. 146 R/W Sec. 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence, acting U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/sec.279 of IPC and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only). In default to pay fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days. The accused is further convicted for the offence punishable U/sec.304(A) of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One (1) year and he is also liable to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only). In default to pay fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 60 days. The accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/s.181 of M.V. Act and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only). In default to pay fine. he shall - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6766 CRL.RP No. 100002 of 2020 undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/s.196 of M.V. Act and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only). In default to pay fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days. Out of fine amount Rs.4500/- shall be given to PW-6 who is the wife of deceased U/sec 357(1) of Cr.P.C, as a victim compensation remaining Rs.1,000/- shall go to state for prosecution expenses after appeal period is over. Supply free copy of judgment to the accused forthwith. 4. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: In respect of road traffic accident occurred on 23.06.2014 at about 6:00 PM., on Jamkhandi to Maigur - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6766 CRL.RP No. 100002 of 2020 public road, involving TATA Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA-48/4763 and motorcycle bearing No.KA-48/J-4295, a complaint came to be lodged with Jamkhandi Rural Police Station. In the accident, rider of the motorcycle Nagappa S/o Hanamant Jamkhandi, died. 5. After thorough investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences noting the fact that the revision petitioner is being the driver of TATA Ace vehicle bearing No.KA- 48/4763, had no valid driving licence. 6. After due trial, accused has been convicted for aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.73/2018. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6766 CRL.RP No. 100002 of 2020 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of both the parties and dismissed the appeal filed by the accused. 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 10. Sri.S.B.Doddagoudar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. He would further contend that since the injured Nagappa S/o Hanamant Jamkhandi has been shifted in his vehicle soon after the accident and he was admitted to hospital and subsequently, he was shifted to higher medical care and ultimately, injured died, the Court may consider the said aspect of the matter and by enhancing - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6766 CRL.RP No. 100002 of 2020 the fine amount, may set aside the order of imprisonment passed by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court and sought for allowing the revision petition to that extent. 12. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State supports the impugned order. 13. He would further contend that admittedly, the revision petitioner did not possess the driving license to bring the vehicle on the road. Therefore, negligence on the part of the revision petitioner and owner of the vehicle is at the inception of the incident which has been rightly appreciated by the learned trial Judge while passing the order of conviction and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 14. He would further contend that mere shifting the injured to the hospital itself could not be treated as - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6766 CRL.RP No. 100002 of 2020 mitigating circumstances and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 16. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: i. Whether revision petitioner makes out the case that the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity, or factual error, so as to seek interference from this Court? ii. Whether the sentence needs modification? iii. What order? REGARDING POINT NO.1: 17. In the case on hand, accused being the driver of TATA Ace vehicle bearing No.KA-48/4763 stands established not only by oral evidence but also on the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6766 CRL.RP No. 100002 of 2020 documentary evidence on record, especially indemnity bond executed by the owner of the vehicle marked at Ex.P.10. 18. Further, the accident is not in dispute though accused has tried to deny the same at the time of recording the accused statement. 19. Further, the suggestions made to the prosecution witnesses especially PW.3 would go to show that accident has occurred, not an account of negligence, but on account of the attendant facts and circumstances in as much as at 6:00 P.M., in the June month, there will not be proper visibility. Such suggestions are denied by PW.3. But fact remains that suggestion made to the PW.3 establishes the accident. 20. Further, the injured Nagappa S/o Hanamant Jamkhandi, who was the rider of the motorcycle has been shifted to the hospital by accused, PW.3 and others in the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6766 CRL.RP No. 100002 of 2020 very same offending vehicle. However, because of the impact of the injuries sustained by Nagappa, he succumbed to injuries despite best medical treatment. The post mortem report marked at Ex.P.9, inquest report marked at Ex.P7 would amply establish the nature of injuries sustained by Nagappa. 21. Further, there is no version placed on record by the accused with regard to accident that has occurred and at the time of recording the accused statement, accused has only denied the incriminating circumstances. 22. Admittedly, none of the prosecution witnesses nurtured any previous enmity or animosity so as to depose falsely against the accused. 23. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the conviction order recorded by trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference by this court. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6766 CRL.RP No. 100002 of 2020 24. View of this Court in this regard is fortified by the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan1. In view of the forgoing discussion, the point No.1 is answered in the negative. REGARDING POINT NO.2: 25. In the case on hand, as referred to supra, learned trial Magistrate has ordered imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 304(A) of the IPC. 26. Taking note of the fact that the injured has been shifted by the revision petitioner in his own vehicle for the medical care, this Court is of the consider opinion that the imprisonment period needs to be reduced from one year to six months following dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh 1 (2012) 9 SCC 284 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6766 CRL.RP No. 100002 of 2020 Bakshi 2. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. REGARDING POINT NO.3: 27. In view of the findings of this Court on points No.1 and 2 as above, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 181, 146 read with Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the sentence of imprisonment by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the IPC is reduced from one year to six months. 2 (2015) 5 SCC 182 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6766 CRL.RP No. 100002 of 2020 (iii) Rest of the sentence stands unaltered. (iv) Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before the trial court for serving remaining part of the sentence till 20.05.2025. (v) Office to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 35