- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5727 CRL.RP No. 100260 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100260 OF 2017 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI MAHADEV S/O. DEVENDRAPPA BADIGER, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. KSRTC DRIVER, R/O. HITTANAGI, TAL. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI, NOW AT HOSA GABBUR, 4TH CROSS, SHARAN NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH CPI, SAUNDATTI POLICE STATION, NOW REP. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 (1) READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 01.12.2011 PASSED BY THE COURT OF JMFC, SAUNDATTI IN C.C.NO. 641 OF 2008 CONFIRMED BY THE I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI VIDE ITS JUDGEMENT DATED 27.07.2015 PASSED IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2012 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 AND 304-A OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.09 15:58:03 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5727 CRL.RP No. 100260 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.Srinand A. Pachhapure, 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 is the KSRTC driver has been convicted in C.C.No.641/2008 which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.12/2012. 3. Sentence ordered by the learned trial Magistrate reads as under: “Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. The accused is sentensed to undergo S.I. for a period of 2 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to pay fine, he shall undergo S.I. for further one month, for the offence punishable under Section 279 I.P.C. Further, the accused is sentensed to undergo S.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to pay fine, the accused shall further undergo S.I. for two - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5727 CRL.RP No. 100260 of 2017 months, for the offence punishable under Section 304 (A) of I.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled. The sentence of imprisonments shall run consecutively.” 4. Factual matrix for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 4.1 Prosecution case reveals that in respect of an accident that occurred at Saudatti bus stand, two persons by name Gourawwa Chadhadi and Niranjan Chachadi sustained grievous injuries and alternatively lost their lives. Prosecution case further reveals that accused being the driver of K.S.R.T.C bus bearing registration No.KA- 22/F-1224, at about 5.00 p.m., moved the bus from depot to the platform in Saundatti bus stand. Since there was no sufficient space in the platform, parked the bus in the bay which was a sloppy area. He did not take necessary precaution like pulling the hand break nor keeping any stone to the wheels of the bus. But put gear of the bus in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5727 CRL.RP No. 100260 of 2017 reverse gear. Thereafter, went to the office to get the trip sheet entered. 4.2 In the mean time, huge number of school children, boarded bus in a haphazard manner, resulting in gear of the bus being slipped and started moving the bus backwards. 4.3 Five persons, who are moving behind the bus noting the bus being moved in the reverse direction, scattered away with the fear of getting stuck under the bus. In that process, Gourawwa Chadhadi and Niranjan Chachadi, could not escape and they fell under the wheels of the bus and were injured. Noticing the same, others who are there at the spot were able to stop the bus. But because of injuries, Gourawwa Chadhadi and Niranjan Chachadi were found dead on account of bus moving on their vital parts of the body. 5. Incident was reported by the officials of the KSRTC to the jurisdictional Police and thereafter, case came to be registered. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5727 CRL.RP No. 100260 of 2017 6. Police after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused. 7. Accused stood for the trial and after due trial, he was convicted and sentenced as referred to supra. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before District Court in Crl.A.No.12/2012. 9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records and hearing the arguments, re- appreciated the material evidence on record and dismissed the appeal. 10. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 11. Sri.Srinand A. Pachchapure, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that both the Courts failed to notice two important and significant factors in the incident namely the sloppy road and at the time of incident accused was not in the driver seat. 12. He would further contend that at the most negligence that could be attributed to the accused under Section 279 of the IPC which in Sine-qua-non for - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5727 CRL.RP No. 100260 of 2017 conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the IPC, is to the extent of not properly parking the bus with necessary precautions. Therefore, in the case on hand, needs a special attention with regard to the alleged negligence on the part of the accused and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition. 13. Alternatively, Sri.Srinand A. Pachchapure, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction inasmuch as on account of movement of bus in a sloppy road in the reverse direction automatically on account other school children getting into the bus in a haphazard manner, the Court may consider enhancing fine amount and set aside the imprisonment. 14. Per contra, Sri.Praveen Y Devareddiyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State supports the impugned order. 15. He would further contend that accused being driver of the bus, was required to take such necessary precaution in pulling out the hand break as well as putting - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5727 CRL.RP No. 100260 of 2017 the stones behind the tyres especially when the bus was parked on the sloppy road. Being sensible and profession driver, he ought to have expected that the bus may move in the reverse direction on account of the sloppy road and necessary precaution should have been taken before parking the bus assuming that he was required to get the trip sheet entered and not taking such precautionary steps, as resulted in the incident which could be termed as negligently handling of the bus, if not driving, resulting in loss of two valuable lives. 16. He would further contend that any amount of compensation would not bring back the valuable lives of Gourawwa Chadhadi and Niranjan Chachadi. Therefore, alternate submission cannot be countenanced in law and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 17. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused material on record meticulously. On such perusal of material on record, since there is no serious contest with regard to the conviction of the accused, the sole point that would arise for consideration is: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5727 CRL.RP No. 100260 of 2017 “Whether the sentence needs modification?” 18. In the light of the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, wherein death of Gourawwa Chadhadi and Niranjan Chachadi being not in dispute and they died out of the bus moving on their vital parts of the body in the Saundatti bus stand having been established, the only factor that needs to be considered is whether the case on hand requires awarding of imprisonment period for the act attributable to the accused. 19. Admittedly, in the case on hand, bus was moved from the depot to the Saundatti bus stand towards the platform. Since the platform was full, accused in order to get the trip sheet entered parked the vacant bus on sloppy road by putting the reverse gear. Admittedly, he did not apply hand break and nor did take such precautionary steps like putting a stones behind the tyres so as to avoid the unexpected movement of the bus on the reverse direction. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5727 CRL.RP No. 100260 of 2017 20. In the mean time, huge number of school children, noticing the bus being parked, entered the bus hurriedly in a haphazard manner. As such, the reverse gear has been slipped and the bus started moving reverse direction. Admittedly, the revision petitioner was not in the driver seat when the incident has occurred. The school children started making hue and cry in a loud voice. 21. In the mean time, five persons who are moving in the Saundatti bus stand to catch some other bus, noticing the bus moving in the reverse direction tried to escape away from the possible accident. In the process, three persons escaped and Gourawwa Chadhadi and Niranjan Chachadi could not escape from the accident. As such, they fell down and bus ran over them. 22. Taking note of these aspects of the matters, this Court is of the considered opinion that though there is a negligence on the part of the driver of the bus in not taking such necessary precautions in parking the bus, he could not be equated with a driver of a bus who drove the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5727 CRL.RP No. 100260 of 2017 same in a rash and negligent manner and responsible for death of human beings. 23. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction of accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the IPC, simple imprisonment ordered by the learned trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC and six months for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the IPC needs to be set aside by enhancing the fine in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- which can be paid as compensation to the dependents of Gourawwa Chadhadi and Niranjan Chachadi. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative. 24. In view of the foregoing discussion, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5727 CRL.RP No. 100260 of 2017 (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court modified as under. Sentence of imprisonment of 2 months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC and 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the IPC is by set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- payable on or before 30.05.2025. (iii) Failure to pay the enhanced payment on or before 30.05.2025 would result in restoration of the jail sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (iv) After the payment of entire enhanced the fine amount, the same shall be paid as compensation to the dependents of Smt.Gourawwa in a sum of Rs.75,000/- each who are examined as PW.3/CW.8 under due identification. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5727 CRL.RP No. 100260 of 2017 (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.: 32