- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5808 CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100010 OF 2019 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: ZIYAULLA S/O. MEHABOOBSAB SURANAGI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC. AUTO DRIVER, R/O. PARVATASIDDAGERI, TQ. HIREKEUR, DIST. HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD, THROUGH RATTIHALLI POLICE STATION. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.428/2010, BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HIREKERUR, DATED 07.05.2016 AND JUDGMENT OF CONFIRMATION PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.40/2016 DATED 11.12.2018 BY THE II-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) AND CONVICTING THE PRESENT REVISION PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 279, 304-A, 338 OF IPC AND PASSING AN ORDER OF SENTENCE FOR THE SAID OFFENCES BE SET ASIDE AND THE REVISION PETITIONER IS ORDER TO BE ACQUITTED FROM THE CHARGES ALLEGED AGAINST HIM. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.04.04 12:20:02 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5808 CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.A.M.Gundawade, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.428/2010 dated 07.05.2017 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304A of IPC which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.40/2016 dated 11.12.2018 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with Rattihalli Police Station alleging that on 07.04.2010 at about 12.00 noon, accused being the driver of the goods auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-27/7188 drove the same in a rash and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5808 CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2019 negligent manner on Rattihalli-Tumminkatti road and at a distance of about 2 kilometers from Kadur Cross, he dashed against a motorcycle bearing engine No.JBMBSK23100, chasis No.MD2DSPAZSWK30623, registration No.KA-27-S/7705. Because of the impact of the said incident, Manjunath sustained grievious injuries on the head and died whereas Maruti being the pillion rider also sustained grievous injuries. 3.2. Based on the said complaint, police registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304A of IPC. 4. After thorough trial, accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC, to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279, 338 of IPC and sum of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5808 CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2019 5. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.40/2016. 6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and in the light of the appeal grounds and on reappreciation of the material evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. 7. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that incident has occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by Manjunath and not by the accused which has not been properly appreciated by both the Courts and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5808 CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2019 9. Alternatively, he would contend that accused being one of the bread earner of the family, sentence of imprisonment may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and sought for allowing the revision petition to that extent. 10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent supports the impugned judgments. 11. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the revision petitioner makes out a case that impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus, calls for interference? 2. Whether the sentence is excessive? 3. What order? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5808 CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2019 REG.POINT No.1: 13. In the case on hand, death of Manjunath while shifting to the hospital in respect of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident involving a goods auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-27/7188 and motorcycle bearing No.KA-27-S/7705 is not in dispute. Maruti being injured is also not in dispute. Revision petitioner being the driver of the goods auto rickshaw is also not in dispute. 14. Admittedly, complainant and eye witnesses to the incident have supported the case of the prosecution by deposing about the incident with graphic details. Incident has occurred at about 12 noon on the road proceeding from Rattihalli to Tumminakatti. 15. Admittedly, the spot sketch would show that because of the rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw by the revision petitioner, incident has occurred. Neither the complainant nor the eye witnesses did not - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5808 CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2019 possess any previous enmity or animosity against the revision petitioner to depose falsely. 16. In fact accused ran away from the spot leaving behind the auto rickshaw and did not take steps to shift the injured persons to the hospital. 17. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and taking note of the fact that no explanation whatsoever is offered by the revision petitioner nor any version of the revision petitioner being placed on record, following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 (9) SCC 284, order of conviction needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in negative. REG.POINT No.2: 18. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that revision petitioner is the only bread earner of the family and if the order of sentence of imprisonment - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5808 CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2019 is confirmed, his family members would be put to untold hardship. 19. Taking note of the fact that one person has lost his life and another person is injured, reducing the sentence of imprisonment of one year to nine months would meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. REG.POINT No.3: 20. In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 as above, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5808 CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2019 punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304A of IPC, sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC of one year is reduced to nine months. iii. Rest of the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. iv. Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court till 30.04.2025 for serving remaining part of the sentence. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issuing modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 34