- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6171 CRL.RP No. 100234 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100234 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: P. NAGRAJ S/O. K. PERUMAL, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: YARAMBADI, TQ: KOLLEGI, DIST: CHAMRAJNAGAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.G. INDI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH RANEBENNUR RURAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO 1) ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 19.11.2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR), FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 338 & 304-A OF IPC; 2) CONSEQUENTLY, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 31.03.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC COURT, RANEBENNUR IN C.C.NO.190/2009 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 338 & 304-A OF IPC, AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.19 10:32:27 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6171 CRL.RP No. 100234 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.B.G.Indi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who has been convicted in CC No.190/2009 by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) and JMFC., Ranebennur for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC and sentenced as under: “Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C the accused is hereby held guilty for the offences punishable under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304- A of IPC and is accordingly convicted for the said offences. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.700/- for the offence punishable U/s 279 of IPC, in default he shall undergo 3.1 for one month. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300/- for the offence punishable under Sec.337 of IPC and in default he shall undergo S.I for a period of one month. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6171 CRL.RP No. 100234 of 2018 He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.700/- for the offence U/s 338 of IPC and in default he shall undergo a S.1 for a period of six months. The accused is further sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of one year and shall also be liable to pay fine of 2,000/- for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of the IPC and in default he shall further undergo S.I for two months. The above sentences shall run concurrently excluding the period of sentence which he has already undergone. His bail bond and surety bond hereby stand cancelled. Supply free copy of this judgement to the accused.” 3. Validity of the conviction and sentence was confirmed in Crl A.No.31/2015 by considered judgment dated 19.11.2018. 4. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 4.1 In respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on 28.06.2009 at about 9.30 hours within the limits of Ranebennur Rural police Station in Chalagere - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6171 CRL.RP No. 100234 of 2018 village on Puna-Bengaluru road, NH4, a complaint came to be lodged with Ranebennur Rural Police. 4.2 Complaint averments would reveal that the tractor and trailer unit bearing No.KA-11/T-4681-4682 was being pushed by CWs.6 to 11 and the complainant on account of the fact that diesel in the tank got empty. Accused being the driver of the lorry bearing No. KA.01/D- 6425 drove the same in rash and negligent manner and ran over on the persons who are pushing the tractor and trailer unit. 4.3 Among them CWs.6 to 11 sustained simple and grievous injuries and three persons sustained fatal injuries and they died on the spot. Accused being the driver of the lorry without attending to the injured persons nor complaining to the police left the lorry on the spot and run away from the spot. 4.4 Police after registering the case thoroughly investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6171 CRL.RP No. 100234 of 2018 the accused for the offence punishable Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. 4.5 After due trial, accused was convicted for the aforesaid said offences and sentenced as referred to supra. 4.6 Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2015. 4.7 Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgement dated 19.11.2018 dismissed the appeal of the accused. 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision. 6. Sri.B.G.Indi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that taking note of the time of the accident and tractor and trailer did not have any caution lamps, accused could not spot the tractor and trailer unit - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6171 CRL.RP No. 100234 of 2018 being pushed by the deceased and other injured persons. Therefore accident has occurred, which is beyond the control of normal prudent human being especially taking note of the fact that the accident has occurred on a highway. Therefore conviction of the accused for the aforesaid offences has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision Petition. 7. Alternatively, Sri.B.G.Indi would contend that in the event, this Court upholding the order of conviction, lenient view may be taken by enhancing the fine amount, portion of which could be paid as compensation and set aside the imprisonment period as accused is a sole bread earner of the family and sought for allowing the revision petition to that extent. 8. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learnd High Court Government Pleader, opposes the revision grounds. 9. He would further contend that both the Courts have assessed the material evidence on record in proper manner. Therefore in this revision hardly there is any - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6171 CRL.RP No. 100234 of 2018 scope for interference and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 10. Insofar as the alternate submission is concerned, Sri.Praveen would contend that three valuable lives have been lost solely on the negligent driving of the lorry by the accused and therefore no lenience can be shown and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 11. Having heard the arguments of the parties, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. 12. 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? - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6171 CRL.RP No. 100234 of 2018 Regarding Point No.1 13. In the case on hand, the road traffic accident that took place on 28/06/2009 involving lorry bearing No.KA.01/D-6425 and tractor and trailer unit bearing No.KA.11/T-4681-4682 is not in dispute. Admittedly, accused was the driver of the lorry in question. Accident had occurred in Chalagere village on NH 4 within the limits of Ranebennur Rural Police. Time of the accident is 7:30 PM. 14. Injured and diseased persons including the complainant were pushing the tractor and trailer, as fuel in the tractor tank became empty. Accused did not bestow his best attention to spot the tractor and trailer which is being pushed and ran over the persons who were in the process of pushing the tractor and trailer unit. Instead of attending the injured in shifting them to the hospital nor intimating the Police about the incident, accused ran away - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6171 CRL.RP No. 100234 of 2018 from the spot. Thereafter, complaint came to be lodged and police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. 15. Before the trial court, complaint, few of the injured persons are also examined apart from the investigation officer. Exhibit P6 to P8 being the post- mortem reports of the deceased persons and wound certificates of the injured are marked as Exhibits P9 to P12 and wound certificates of the injured marked at exhibits P9 to P12 would sufficiently corroborate the case of the prosecution. 16. Photographs marked at Exhibits P14 and P15 depict the ghostly incident. Motor vehicle inspector report marked at Ex.P.13 indicate that there was no mechanical defects in the lorry. 17. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and the sketch marked at Ex.P.16 would make it clear that it is the negligent driving of the lorry by the accused is the sole reason for the death of three persons and several persons being injured with simple and grievous injuries. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6171 CRL.RP No. 100234 of 2018 18. Prosecution having established the charges with cogent and convincing evidence on record, discharged its burden in proving the guilt of the accused. After prosecution establishes its case by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record, it is expected of from the accused to place his version about the incident either by filing written submissions as is contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C. or by leading defence evidence by examining himself and other possible witnesses. If the accused deliberately fails to utilise such an opportunity at the time of recording the accused statement, consequences in law should follow. 19. In the case on hand, accused did not choose to do so and he went to the extent of denying the very accident itself. 20. Taking note of the trend of cross examination and silence of the accused, the learned trial judge was justified in recording an order of conviction and learned judge in the First Appellate Court was justified in upholding the order of conviction. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6171 CRL.RP No. 100234 of 2018 21. This Court having regard to the limited scope of the revisional jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the well reasoned orders passed by both the Courts. 22. More so, when there is no version placed by the accused about the incident, view of this Court is supported by the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan1. From the above discussion, point No.1 is answered in the negative. Regarding point No.2. 23. Sri.B.G.Indi learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought for lenience on the ground that accused is the sole bread earner of the family. 24. In the case on hand three valuable lives have been lost solely on the negligent driving of the lorry by the accused. Apart from the same, two others have also sustained simple and grievous injuries. 1 (2012) 9 SCC 284 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6171 CRL.RP No. 100234 of 2018 25. In the normal circumstances, it is the State that should have sought for enhance sentence in a matter of this nature. Since, State has not preferred a revision, in the revision petition filed by the accused, this Court is unable to enhance the sentence ordered by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Taking note of this aspect of the matter, point No.2 is answered in the negative. Regarding Point No.3: 26. In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) Revision petition is merit less and is hereby dismissed. (ii) Time is granted till 15.05.2025 for the accused to surrender before the trial court for serving the remaining part of the sentence. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6171 CRL.RP No. 100234 of 2018 (iii) Office is directed to return the trial court records along with the copy of the order. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 50