- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6280 CRL.RP No. 100455 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100455 OF 2022 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: DATHTHREYA @ DATHTHREYA S/O. LAKSHMANA AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. RAJOLA VILLAGE, TQ. BASAVAKALYANA, DIST. BIDAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KURUGODU, BALLARI DIST. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC. PRAYED THAT THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE BALLARI IN CRL.A NO.07/2021 DATED 10.11.2022 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BALLARI FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279, 337, 338, 304(A) OF IPC R/W SECTION 187 OF IMV ACT. IN CC NO.44/2017 DATED 25.01.2021, MAY PLEASE BE SET ASIDE AND THE PETITIONER MAY PLEASE ACQUITTED BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6280 CRL.RP No. 100455 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.B.V.Somapur, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. Accused is the revision petitioner who has suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.44/2017 dated 25.01.2021 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and Section 187 of the IMV Act and sentenced as under: “Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC and read with Section 187 of IMV Act and convicted by ordering to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC and Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC and to undergo S.I. for the period of six months with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC respectively. In default of payment of fine, the accused is ordered to undergo S.I. for a period of ten days - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6280 CRL.RP No. 100455 of 2022 each for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC, five days for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC and Ninety days for default of fine amount of Rs.5,000/- under Section 304(A) of IPC. The accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 187 of IMV Act and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and shall undergo simple imprisonment for one months and in default to pay fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The sentence and the default sentence shall runs concurrently.” 3. Validity of the order of conviction was confirmed in Crl.A.No.07/2021 dated 10.11.2022. 4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 4.1. In respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on 04.01.2017, a case came to be registered by the Kurugod Police Station, Ballari District for the offences punishable under section 279, 337 and 304A of IPC and Section 187 of IMV Act. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6280 CRL.RP No. 100455 of 2022 4.2. Complaint averments would reveal that on 04.01.2017 at about 3:00 p.m. near Bhagyanagara Camp on Siruguppa-Ballari, NH-152 road, accused being the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-34/F-1275 came from Ballari side towards Siruguppa in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle bearing No.KA-17/R-4352 who was proceeding from Siruguppa towards Ballari. As a result, Shivashankara who was proceeding on the said motorcycle, fell down. Said bus also dashed against Raghavendra Naik and Neelakanta who were sitting on the drop by the side of road. 5. Based on the said complaint, police registered the case as aforesaid in Crime No.1/2017 and investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. 6. Accused stood for trial and after due trial, he has been convicted and sentenced as referred to supra. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6280 CRL.RP No. 100455 of 2022 7. C.W.1 - Raghavendra Naik and Neelakanta - C.W.11, were examined before the Trial Court as PW.1 and 14 who are also injured in the same incident. 8. Accused being the driver of the bus as on the date of accident is not in dispute and loss of life of Shivashankara being the rider of the motorcycle is also established by placing inquest and post-mortem report. IMV report marked at Ex.P.30 did not show any mechanical defect in the bus. 9. Crowning all these aspects of the matter, accused failed to offer any explanation to the incriminatory circumstances nor placed his version about incident. 10. Taking note of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapoor v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 (9) SCC 284, conviction order recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6280 CRL.RP No. 100455 of 2022 needs no interference by this Court, that too, in the revisional jurisdiction. 11. However, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that accused being the driver of the KSRTC bus, by enhancing the fine amount, imprisonment period of six months ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, may be set aside. 12. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the said submission on the ground that one valuable life has been lost in the accident and two persons are injured. 13. Taking note of the fact that one valuable life has been lost and two others are injured in the incident, sentence of punishment of only six months simple imprisonment by the learned Trial Magistrate which has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court is reasonable. State having not challenged the quantum of sentence, in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6280 CRL.RP No. 100455 of 2022 the revision petition filed by the accused, there is no scope for enhancement of the imprisonment. Therefore, order of sentence needs no modification having regard to the principles of law enunciated in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182. 14. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. ii. Time is granted for till 15th May 2025 for the revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 26