- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6032 CRL.RP No. 100231 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.100231 OF 2017 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MANJUNATH S/O. SHIVANAPPA AASANGI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. HIREKOPPA-587207, NARAGUND TALUK, DIST. GADAG. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PSI, ILKAL POLICE STATION, TAL. BAGALKOTE, THROUGH S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C. 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO KINDLY ALLOW THE PETITION AND TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.118 OF 2013 DATED 18.04.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED IN C.C.NO.569 OF 2011 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNGUND DATED 26.10.2013 IN OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 338 AND 304A OF IPC AND SECTION 187 OF I.M.V ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CALL FOR RECORDS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6032 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned HCGP for respondent-State. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.569/2011 confirmed in Crl.A.No.118/2013 is the revision petitioner. 3. Sentence ordered by learned trial Judge reads as under: “Acting u/sec 255 (2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under sections 279, 337, 338, 304 (a) of IPC and Sec.187 of I.M.V.Act. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under section 279 of IPC. In default he shall under go SI for a period of 3 months. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6032 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2017 The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month and shall pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under section 337 of IPC. In default he shall undergo SI for a period of 15 days. The accused is sentenced undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and shall pay to fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC. In default he shall undergo SI undergo simple for a period of 1 month. The accused sentenced is to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and shall pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under section 304 (a) of IPC. In default he shall undergo SI for a period of 6 months. Further the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.350/-each for the offence punishable under section 134 (a) and (b) read with Section 187 of IMV Act. All the sentences shall run concurrently. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6032 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2017 The bail bond of the accused and surety bonds stands cancelled. The interim custody of vehicles is made absolute.” 4. Facts in brief for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 4.1 A complaint came to be lodged in respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on 14.04.2011 at about 11p.m. on Raichur-Belagavi State Highway involving a Tata Indica car bearing No.KA-29/4536 and lorry bearing No.KA-48/3185. As a result, driver and one of the inmate of the car succumbed to the injury and two more persons were injured. One of the injured suffered simple injury and other injured suffered grievous injuries. 4.2 Based on the complaint, Ilkal Police registered the case and conducted the detailed investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under section 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6032 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2017 4.3 Presence of the accused was secured and plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty therefore trial was held. 4.4 In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, 9 witnesses came to be examined as PW.1 to PW.9 and 24 documents came to be marked as exhibit P1 to P24. 4.5 Accused statement as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein accused has denied the in incriminatory circumstances including the accident. However, accused did not place any version in writing as is contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C. nor placed any defence evidence about the incident. 4.6 Thereafter, learned trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and on cumulative consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6032 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2017 4.7 Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.118/2013. 4.8 First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re- appreciation of the material placed on record dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. 4.9 Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision. 5. Sri.Harish S. Maigur, 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 on record and wrongly convicted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice. 6. He would invite the attention of this Court to the spot sketch and contented that it is the driver of the car (deceased) who was responsible for the accident as he - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6032 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2017 did not have proper sleep and he drove the car in wrong direction resulting in head on collision with a lorry for which the present petitioner being the driver of the lorry is not responsible for the accident. He would also invite the attention of this Court to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses where in they have admitted that driver of the car was sleepy resulting in the accident which has been ignored by the trial Magistrate and mechanically confirmed by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court and sought for allowing revision Petition. 7. Alternatively, Sri. Harish S. Maigur would contend that in the event, this Court upholding the order of conviction, by enhancing the fine amount which could be paid as compensation to the dependents of deceased, sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial Magistrate for the offence under Section 304A IPC may be set aside. 8. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgment. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6032 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2017 9. He further contend that admittedly after thorough investigation taking note of the attendant facts and circumstance of the incident, the charge sheet came to be filed against the revision petitioner who is the driver of the lorry. 10. He would also contend that given the width of the road, it is the Lorry which came in the wrong direction and hit the car and it is not the mistake of the driver of the car which resulted in the accident. 11. He also pointed out that the suggestions made to the prosecution witnesses that the driver was sleepy and therefore he did not drive the car properly is denied by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore the contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioner cannot be countenanced in law and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 12. Sri.Praveen would also contend insofar as alternate submission is concerned, two valuable lives have been lost in the accident and two persons are injured. Therefore no mercy can be shown to the revision - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6032 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2017 petitioner and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. 14. 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 15. On perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that revision petitioner is the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-48/3185. Admittedly, the incident has occurred at about 11:00 PM. The place of incident is a State Highway and it is clearly seen that road is wide - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6032 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2017 enough from the photographs marked at exhibit P6. Exhibit P7 is the photo of the lorry, wherein it is the right side of the lorry which has hit the car and whereby because of the impact, the car fell into the ditch and dashed against the tree and inmates of the car have sustained injuries and two of the inmates have lost their life. 16. The spot sketch marked at exhibit P.21 would go to show that it is the lorry which has come in the wrong direction. No doubt the place of lorry is shown on the left side of the road because it has been moved after the accident to the left side of the road. At the place of incident that could be seen from the place where the mahazar was drawn shows that lorry had moved on the right side which is visible in exhibit P4 where the investigation officer with the panchas has shown the place of incident with a red flag thereof which is the right side road for the lorry and the left side road of the car. 17. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the learned trial Judge was justified in recording in order of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6032 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2017 conviction against the accused. More so, having regard to the fact that the accused failed to place his version on record. 18. 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 Rajasthan.1 19. Accordingly, point number one is answered the negative. Regarding Point No.2: 20. In the case on hand, two valuable lives have been lost in the accident and two more persons are injured. Learned trial judge in his discretion has granted only six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A IPC. State did not choose to challenge inadequacy of the sentence and therefore it has become final. 1 (2012) 9 SCC 284 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6032 CRL.RP No. 100231 of 2017 21. In the absence of any mitigating circumstances, the sentence order by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference in view of the principles of law enunciated in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi.2. Accordingly, point number 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 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. 2 (2015) 5 SCC 182 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6032 CRL.RP No. 100231 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.: 23