- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6033 CRL.RP No. 100320 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100320 OF 2017 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: IMAMSAB S/O. HUSSAISAB BHAIRKKADAR, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. NARGUND, DIST. GADAG. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN MADANALLI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI D.B. KALLANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA NAVALAGUND P.S., REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN THE CRL.APPEAL NO.38 OF 2014 DATED 15.09.2017, BY THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPL. JUDGE DHARWAD HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF C.C.NO.55 OF 2007 DATED 24.06.2014 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NAVALAGUND, THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED MAY BE ACQUITTED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.04.09 11:36:40 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6033 CRL.RP No. 100320 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Mallikarjun Madanalli, counsel for Sri.D.B.Kallanagouder and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offences punishable under sections 279, 337, 304A IPC and Section 187 R/W Section 134(a)(b) R/W 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.38/2014 is the revision petitioner. 3. Accused is sentenced as under in the trial Court: The accused is guilty and convicted for the offences punishable U/s. 279, 337 and 304(A) I.P.C., Section134(a) (b) R/w. 187 M.V. Act. Heard both sides. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6033 CRL.RP No. 100320 of 2017 The accused having committed offence shall undergo 4 months of simple imprisonment sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in so far the offence punishable U/s. 279 I.P.C. is concerned. The accused having committed offence shall undergo 4 months of simple imprisonment sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in so far the offence punishable U/s. 337 I.P.C. is concerned. The accused having committed offence shall undergo 6 months of simple imprisonment sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in so far the offence punishable U/s. 304A I.P.C. is concerned. In default accused shall undergo S.I. for a period of 1 month for the offence U/s. 279, 337 and 304A of I.P.C and 1 month for all the offences. “In so far as Sec. 187 of M.V. Act is concerned the accused shall undergo S.I. for 1 month and fine of Rs. 500/-. All the sentences shall run consecutively. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6033 CRL.RP No. 100320 of 2017 Looking to the circumstances of the case and the manner in which the accident is caused and conduct of the accused fleeing from the spot soon after the incident requires that the licence issued by the competent authority by directed to cancel the licence issued in favour of the accused. Acting U/s. 20 of M.V. Act the competent authority that has issued the licence to the accused shall cancel the same and the period for which the licence shall stands suspended would be 6 months in the case in respect of offences punishable U/s. 279, 337, 388 and 304A I.P.C. and so far as the offence punishable U/s. 187 is concerned as the contravention is one Sec. 134 M.V. Act. The accused is disqualified from holding the licence to drive the vehicle for 1 month from the date of this order. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned R.T.O. for compliance.” 4. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6033 CRL.RP No. 100320 of 2017 4.1 A complaint came to be lodged by Navalgund Police contending that on 30/06/2006 at about 3:00 PM on Alagawadi-Naragund road, four kilometres away from Alagawadi village, accused being the driver of the goods auto rickshaw bearing number KA-26/5293 carried complainant CW9 to 18 and deceased inmates Renamma and Mallavva from Alagawadi towards Naragund. He drove the auto rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle. As a result, auto rickshaw got turtled and CW.9 to 18 sustained simple injuries. 4.2 Renavva and Mallavva being the inmates of the said auto rickshaw on account of grievous injuries sustained, succumbed to the injuries, when they were in treatment in the hospital. 4.3 Based on the said complaint, Police registered the case and investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6033 CRL.RP No. 100320 of 2017 4.4 After due trial, accused was convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra. 4.5 Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in criminal Appeal No.38/2014. 4.6 Learned judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records re-appreciated the material evidence on record and dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of sentence. 4.7 Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this court in this revision. 5. Sri.Mallikarjuna Madanalli, representing Sri.D.B.Kallanagouder 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 thus sought for allowing the revision petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6033 CRL.RP No. 100320 of 2017 6. Alternatively, Sri.Mallikarjuna Madanalli contended that in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction, lenience may be shown by enhancing the fine amount reasonably by setting aside the imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A IPC and sought for allowing the revision petition to that extent. 7. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgements. 8. He would further contend that in the accident, two valuable lives have been lost and other persons were injured. Prosecution has examined the injured witness before the Court to establish his case. Therefore, order of conviction recorded by trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference and so also the sentence in view of the fact that the learned trial Magistrate has granted only six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A IPC. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6033 CRL.RP No. 100320 of 2017 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration of this Court: i. Whether revision petitioner would make out the case that the impugned judgment are suffering from legal infirmities, perversity and patent factual error and sought for interference? ii.Whether the sentence needs modification? iii.What order? Regarding Point No.1: 11. In the case on hand, the accused being the driver of the auto rickshaw in question though disputed, is established by placing necessary evidence on record especially indemnity bond executed by owner of auto rickshaw and the oral testimony of PW.2 who has supported the case of the prosecution in part. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6033 CRL.RP No. 100320 of 2017 12. With regard to the testimony of PWs3, 5, 6,8 to 10 are concerned, they are the inmates of the offending auto rickshaw and they are all injured witnesses as well. 13. It is settled principles of law that requires no emphasis that the testimony of the injured witnesses must be kept on higher pedestal. 14. The spot panchanama stands proved by examining the panch witnesses as well as the investigation officer. 15. There was no mechanical defect in the auto rickshaw as could be seen from the IME report. Crowning all these aspects of the matter, the accused failed to place his version about the incident on record either by examining himself or furnishing any written submissions as is contemplated under section 313(4) Cr.PC. 16. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned trial judge and learned judge in the First Appellate Court was justified in recording an order of conviction. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6033 CRL.RP No. 100320 of 2017 View of this Court in this regard is supported by the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan1. 17. Therefore, even with limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and the material on record is reconsidered by this Court, hardly there is any scope for interference with regard to the recording of order of conviction. 18. Accordingly point No.1 is answered in the negative. Regarding Point No.2: 19. In the case on hand, six months imprisonment has been granted by the trial Magistrate for the offence under Section 304A IPC. 20. Two valuable lives have been lost and State did not choose to challenge the quantum of sentence and therefore it has become final. 1 (2012) 9 SCC 284 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6033 CRL.RP No. 100320 of 2017 21. Taking note of the fact that two lives have been lost and several others have been injured that too while going in a goods auto rickshaw, this Court does not find any good grounds for reducing the sentence. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the negative. Regarding point No.3 22. In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) Revision petition is mertiless and is hereby dismissed. (ii) Time is granted till 30th April 2025 for the accused to surrender before the trial court for serving the remaining part of the sentence. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6033 CRL.RP No. 100320 of 2017 (iii) Office is directed to return the trial court records along with the copy of the order. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24