- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6126 CRL.RP No. 100259 of 2017 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.100259 OF 2017 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PUNMARAMA S/O. RAMARAMA, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. SANJATA, DIST. BARMAR, DIST. RAJASTAN. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NAGARAJ J. APPANNANAVAR AND SRI GIRISH S. HULMANI, ADVOCATES) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PSI OF RANEBENNUR TRAFFIC P.S., REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN C.C. NO.760 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE PRIL. CIVIL JUDGE AND 1ST ADDL. JMFC, RANEBENNUR AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.02.2017 IN CRL.A.NO.03 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI SITTING AT RANEBENNUR AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 07.12.2012 IN CC MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.22 14:44:07 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6126 CRL.RP No. 100259 of 2017 NO.760 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND I ADDL. JMFC, RANEBENNUR CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 AND 304-A OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 134(a)(b) R/W 187 OF IMV ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Nagaraj T. Appannanavar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Girish S. Hulmani, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.760/2011 dated 07.12.2012 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304A of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of IMV Act and is sentenced as under: “Exercising the powers vested U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused Punmarama S/o Ramarama, is convicted for the offences P/U/S 279, 304 A of IPC and under section. 134(a) (b) R/w 187 of 1. M.V.Act. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6126 CRL.RP No. 100259 of 2017 Accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for the period of 6 (Six) months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000=00 for the offence punishable U/s 279 of Indian Penal Code, In default of payment of fine he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 01 (One)month. Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of 1 (One) year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000=00 for the offence punishable U/s 304(A) of Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he shall under go further Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) month. Fine of Rs. 500=00 is imposed on accused for the offence punishable U/s U/s.134(a) (b) R/w 187 of IMV Act, I/D of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 (Fifteen) days.” 3. Validity of the order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in Crl.A.No.03/2013 dated 06.02.2017. 4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: In respect of road traffic accident that occurred on 12.06.2011 at about 10.00 a.m., wherein accused being the driver of the lorry bearing No.RJ-19/FA-1797, dashed against the motorcycle bearing No.KA-42/A-4290 on Ranganathnagar Road from Sangam Circle towards Doddapete, Ranebennur, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6126 CRL.RP No. 100259 of 2017 wherein rider of the motorcycle - Parameshappa fell down and pillion rider – Latha also fell down and front wheel of the lorry ran over on the pillion rider and she succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Accused did not furnish any medical aid nor took steps and ran away from the spot. Therefore, a complaint came to be lodged against the accused. 5. Police after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet. 6. Accused stood for trial and was convicted and sentenced as referred to supra. 7. Thereafter, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.03/2013. 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court on reapreciation of the material evidence placed on record in the appeal filed by the accused, dismissed the appeal by considered judgment dated 06.02.2017. 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision, on following grounds: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6126 CRL.RP No. 100259 of 2017  The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are contrary to law, facts and materials placed on record, and as such, the same is liable to be set aside.  The said judgment and orders of conviction and sentence suffers from several infirmities. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside and reversed.  The Courts below while passing the said judgment, order of conviction and sentence, has not appreciated the legal nuances involved in their proper perspective, which has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice vis-a-vis the petitioner.  The appreciation of evidence by the Courts below, while passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is not in its proper prospective. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.  It is submitted that statements of PW 1 to PW 9 have given incoherent and contradictory answers during his cross-examination. Nevertheless, the Courts below have handpicked tits from evidences and has conveniently under mined that part of the evidence which augments the case of the accused.  It is submitted that PW 1 Parameshappa, the complainant who is eye witness to the said incident who himself during the course of cross examination has stated that he tried to take his motorcycle to the left side of the road but there was no space to his left side witness and it is due to his mistake accident - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6126 CRL.RP No. 100259 of 2017 occurred and his wife fell down and succumbed to death and who is also an interested witness, which was not noticed by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is not in its proper prospective? Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.  It is also clear from the evidence of the CW 14/ PW 2 Mohammed Khali who is the IMV inspector who has deposed that on 14.06.2011 has inspected the lorry and the motorcycle involved in the accident and found that the right footrest of the motorcycle was bent and no damage was caused to the lorry which can be noticed from the Ex P 7 in respect of inquest report. Therefore, the spot of incident is not proved by the prosecution. Hence, interference of this Hon'ble Court is warranted.  It is also clear from the evidence of the CW 02/ PW 4 Koteppa who is the Spot pancha witness who has deposed during course of the cross examination that the accident spot is a heavily populated spot and traffic is also more and there is also school near the accident spot and even the PW 6/ CW 9 who is also eye witness to the accident and he also admitted that the accident spot is always crowed. Therefore, the incident is not proved by the prosecution properly. Hence, interference of this Hon'ble Court is warranted.  It is submitted that, if the entire prosecution material and evidence of all the witnesses are taken into - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6126 CRL.RP No. 100259 of 2017 consideration, no witnesses have spoken about the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Therefore, the alleged sections are not at all attracted. Hence, interference of this Hon'ble Court is warranted.  Thus, viewed from any angle, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is even otherwise erroneous, and unsustainable in law and hence the same is liable to be set aside.  Any other grounds or grounds will be urged at the time of hearing with due notice to the other side and with permission of this Hon'ble Court. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by Parameshappa and no rash and negligence could be attributed to the revision petitioner having regard to the width of the road and the spot sketch filed in the case and sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. He would further contend that accused has been wrongly convicted for the aforesaid offences and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6126 CRL.RP No. 100259 of 2017 12. Alternately, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that taking note of the fact that there is only one death in the case on hand, sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs to be set aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and sought for allowing the revision petition to that extent. 13. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned orders by contending that admittedly after the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused herein and material on record especially, the oral evidence of Parameshappa, who is the rider of the motorcycle as on the date of accident is taken into consideration by the learned Trial Magistrate while passing the conviction order. 14. He would further contend that accused failed to place his version on record with regard to the accident and therefore, it is too late for the revision petitioner to contend that charge sheet filed against the accused is incorrect and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 15. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, he would contend that taking note of the fact that accused failed - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6126 CRL.RP No. 100259 of 2017 to shift the injured to the hospital nor lodging the complaint against the complainant in respect of the incident and ran away from the spot, no leniency can be shown to the accused and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 16. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 17. 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 needs modification? 3. What order? REG.POINT No.1: 18. In the case on hand, pillion rider of the motorcycle – Latha, lost her life in the road traffic accident that occurred on 12.06.2011 at about 10.00 a.m. involving a lorry bearing No.RJ-19/GA-1797 and so also motorcycle bearing No.KA-42/A- 4290. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6126 CRL.RP No. 100259 of 2017 19. Parameshappa being the rider of the motorcycle has specifically deposed before the Court with graphic details as to what happened on the date of incident. 20. Admittedly, pillion rider is the person, who has lost her life in the accident. There is no dispute that accused was the driver of the lorry in question as on the date of accident. Having regard to the width of the road, as per the spot sketch and investigation agency noted that it is because of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, accident has occurred. No contra version is placed on record by the accused as to what exactly happened on the day of accident. Therefore, learned High Court Government Pleader is justified in submitting before the Court that it is too late for the accused to contend that wrong charge sheet has been filed against the accused. 21. Further, when the prosecution establishes its case especially, taking note of the fact that there was no mechanical defect in the lorry as per the IMV report, it is expected of from the accused to place his version on record in writing as is contemplated under section 313(4) of Cr.P.C. at the time of recording the accused statement or by leading the evidence. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6126 CRL.RP No. 100259 of 2017 22. On the contrary, accused has gone to the extent of denying the entire incriminatory circumstance found against him in the case including the accident. 23. Therefore, following the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 9 SCC 284 and also taking note of the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court is of the considered opinion that order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in negative. REG.POINT No.2: 24. In the case on hand, pillion rider is the person who has lost her life. Applying the principles of law enunciated in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurab Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182, one year imprisonment if reduced to six months, would meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6126 CRL.RP No. 100259 of 2017 REG.POINT No.3: 25. 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 order of conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304A of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of IMV Act, sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified as under: a. Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC by paying the enhanced fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- on or before 15.05.2025. b. Enhanced fine amount shall be paid as compensation to the dependants of Latha (deceased). iii. Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would result in automatic restoration of the sentence - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6126 CRL.RP No. 100259 of 2017 ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. iv. Accused shall surrender before the Trial Court on or before 15.05.2025 for serving remaining part of the sentence. v. Rest of the sentence stands unaltered. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 44