- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5817 CRL.RP No. 100065 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100065 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHARANAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA TAKKALAKI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. NEKRTC DRIVER, R/O. HUVINAHALLI, AFZALPUR TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS BILAGI POLICE STATION AUTHIORITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING THAT THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.01.2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN CRL.A.NO.54/2015 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, BILAGI, DATED 10.07.2015 IN C.C.NO.381/2012, AGAINST THE PETITIONER, FOR THE OFFENCES P/UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 338 & 304-A OF IPC AND SECTION 187 OF M.V. ACT, BE SET ASIDE AND THE PETITIONER BE ACQUITTED FROM THE CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST HIM. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.04.08 11:07:38 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5817 CRL.RP No. 100065 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.381/2012 dated 10.07.2015 for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter MV Act for short) which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.54/2015 dated 28.01.2019 is the revision petitioner. Accused has been sentenced as under: “Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC and Section 187 of MV Act. Accused is hereby sentenced to undergo R/I for one year and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- I/D he shall undergo s S/I for one more month for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. Accused is hereby sentenced to undergo S/I for one month for the offence punishable under Section 187 of MV Act. Sentences shall run separately. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5817 CRL.RP No. 100065 of 2019 Bail bond forfeited. During investigation, the IO released the vehicle to the its owner, the same is hereby made absolute.” 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged by Vithal Talakeri with Bilagi Police Station. Complaint averments would reveal that a mini lorry bearing No.KA-32/B-3587 has been hired to visit Savadatti Yallamma temple for the purpose of hair cutting ceremony of the son of the complainant. About 40 persons were carried in the said goods lorry. The lorry being driven by the accused. When he was proceeding on 01.06.2012 at about 6.00 a.m. on Bijapur – Hubballi Road, accused drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner resulting in a road traffic accident whereby, said lorry dashed against the parked lorry solely on the negligent driving of the revision petitioner. 3.2. In the accident, son of the complainant died on account of head injury and wife of the complainant - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5817 CRL.RP No. 100065 of 2019 sustained fracture injury and C.W.5, 11, 12, 15 to 19, 22 to 26 sustained simple injuries, C.W.4, 6, 19 and 21 sustained grievous injuries. 3.3. Revision petitioner being the driver of the lorry did not even attend to the injured persons and ran away from the spot. Incident was reported to the police by other plyers on the road and police came to the spot and took the complaint. Necessary inquest mahazar and other mahazers were conducted and some of the injured persons who sustained simple injuries were shifted to Bilagi Government Hospital and the persons who sustained grievous injuries were shifted to Bagalkot District Hospital. 3.4. Police after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner. 4. After thorough trial, learned Trial Magistrate based on the oral testimony of the complainant and other injured witnesses, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5817 CRL.RP No. 100065 of 2019 5. Even though there was no sentence passed by the learned Trial Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, State did not chose to file any appeal or revision. Therefore, order of conviction and sentence became final insofar as State is concerned. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.54/2015. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by judgment dated 28.01.2019, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence without noticing the fact that there was no sentence passed for the convicted offences under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision on following grounds: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5817 CRL.RP No. 100065 of 2019  The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Magistrate and too mechanically confirmed by the District and Session Judge, are wholly illegal and not sustainable in law. The courts below acted illegally and with the material irregularity while exercising their jurisdiction and if the said orders passed by the courts below are not set aside the petitioner would be put to great hardship and loss.  The Learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspective and has committed an error in not taking notice of the fact that the lorry bearing MH-25 B 9015 was not properly parked on the road, and it was parked in the middle of the road and there was also a curve and as such there was no possibility to the petitioner to anticipate that the lorry would be parked in such a passion and as such inspite of his due diligence, he could not avoided an accident. The order passed by the learned Magistrate without taking notice of the said circumstances, is wholly illegal and not sustainable in law. The learned Magistrate without considering said admitted circumstances, has committed an error in applying the Principals of Res-Ipsa-Loquitor and has also committed an error in holding that the petitioner is in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5817 CRL.RP No. 100065 of 2019 negligence. The said order passed by the Learned Magistrate and too mechanically confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court, are wholly illegal and not sustainable in law.  The courts below had committed an error in misreading the evidence on record and it ought to have held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts and the petitioner /accused is entitled to benefit of doubts.  The courts below had also committed an error in convicting the accused-petitioner merely on the basis of the evidence of the PW2 and PW 14, who are related and interested and whose evidence are unreliable. The courts below ought to have rejected their evidence as unnatural, artificial and contradictory and unsafe to believe.  The courts below also failed to take notice of the fact the prosecution witnesses have improved their versions and there is also material omissions and these omissions and improvements will goes to the root of the prosecution case and the trial court committed an error in convicting the petitioner only on the basis of the such an unreliable evidence which is liable to be set aside. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5817 CRL.RP No. 100065 of 2019  The Courts below also relied on the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 to 14, and failed to take note that there is full of contradiction in their evidence and the trial court erred in relying on the inadmissible and contradictory evidence. The courts below also failed to take notice of the fact there witnesses are the interested witnesses and their evidence is unsafe to believe.  The Courts below ought to have held that no person can be convicted merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and ought to have acquitted the petitioner /accused.  The learned Sessions Judge has also committed an error in not taking of the fact that the there are material contradictions between the complaint and also relying on the evidence of the PW2 to PW-14, committed an error holding that the accused who was driving a bus on the left side, suddenly dashed to the parked truck and lower appellate court also committed an error in holding that the burden is upon the accused to explain why he went to the totally left side, which is wholly illegal. The learned Session Judge, failed to take notice of the fact the entire burden was upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5817 CRL.RP No. 100065 of 2019 beyond reasonable grounds, and on the failure of the prosecution the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt, and when the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty, the courts below ought to have acquitted the accused from the charges framed against him.  Both the courts below committed an error in not considering the fact that there is discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the manner in which the accident has taken place and these discrepancies goes to the root of the prosecution story and also creates the doubt about the rash and negligence of the accused and the manner in which the accident has taken place, as such the courts below ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the accused- petitioner.  The learned Sessions Judge committed an error in holding that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Session Judge failed to take notice of the fact that the session court being the last court for appreciating the evidence on record, ought to have re appreciated the evidence, independently, and the order passed by the learned Session - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5817 CRL.RP No. 100065 of 2019 Judge, too mechanically without properly appreciating the evidence and also the various grounds urged by the appellant, is wholly illegal and requires to be set aside. The order of the learned Session Judge, is also too perfunctory and without looking to the records properly as such the order of the learned Session Judge, is wholly illegal and requires to be set aside.  The learned Session Judge also misread the evidence of the trail court and too mechanically confirmed the order of the conviction and sentence. The order passed by the learned Session Judge, is also without any application of mind, and caused substantial injustice to the petitioner-accused.  The order passed by the lower appellate court is also too perfunctory and the lower appellate court ought to have re appreciated the entire evidence on record to comes to conclusion that whether the order of the trial court are correct or not.  Even otherwise viewed from any angle, the conviction and order of sentence passed by the courts below are wholly illegal, capricious and as such liable to be set aside.” - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5817 CRL.RP No. 100065 of 2019 9. Sri.J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that except for the fact that injured witnesses have deposed before the Court that lorry was moving in a high speed. Except that there is no other material on record which would attribute the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the revision petitioner resulting in the incident. 10. He would further contend that mere high speed is not the sole criteria for adjudging the rashness especially when the witnesses have admitted that the lorry was parked without proper signal on the highway. Therefore, no rashness could be attributed to the revision petitioner. 11. He would also contend that admittedly, complainant was sitting behind the cabin of the lorry and therefore, he could not have witnessed as to how the accident has occurred. Therefore, his testimony and testimony of the other injured witnesses cannot be based - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5817 CRL.RP No. 100065 of 2019 for the purpose of recording an order of conviction against the revision petitioner and sought for allowing the revision petition. 12. He also pointed out that driver of the parked lorry admitted that he has not put on the indicator lamps or sufficient indication that a lorry is parked on the road. Therefore, no negligence can be attributable to the revision petitioner and sought for allowing the revision petition. 13. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent supports the impugned judgments. 14. He would contend that admittedly charge sheet came to be filed against the revision petitioner which has not been challenged by the revision petitioner. Therefore, he cannot argue before this Court that the charge sheet filed by the police is incorrect. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5817 CRL.RP No. 100065 of 2019 15. He would further contend that very fact that one valuable life has been lost and several other persons have been injured in the incident establishes the gravity of the incident whereby the rash and negligence is only attributable to the revision petitioner 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 is excessive? 3. What order? REG.POINT No.1: 18. In the case on hand, admittedly, accused/revision petitioner is the driver of the lorry - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5817 CRL.RP No. 100065 of 2019 bearing No.ka-32/B-3587 which is a goods lorry. Why did the revision petitioner took up the responsibility of carrying 40 persons in the said lorry is a question that remains unanswered. Travelling in a goods lorry that too for the purpose of visiting Savadatti Yallamma temple from Kalaburagi District itself is an offence. 19. Further, after the lorry crossed Korthi Kolar Bridge, while proceeding on Bijapur – Hubballi Road, revision petitioner who was the driver of the lorry, dashed against the parked lorry. No doubt, driver of the parked lorry admits that there was no sufficient indication nor any precautionary method. 20. Revision petitioner being the terminal driver of the offending lorry, should have expected an unexpected thing on road especially when the incident has taken place on 01.06.2012 at about 6.00 a.m. Injured witnesses have specifically deposed that the driver of the lorry was moving in a high speed. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5817 CRL.RP No. 100065 of 2019 21. No doubt, speed is not the only criteria while adjudging the rashness. A specific suggestion was put to P.W.2 in the cross-examination that there was a road hump few feet away from the place of incident, as such, lorry could not have been moved in a high speed. P.W.2 has answered that the revision petitioner drove the lorry by jumping the road hump which is sufficient enough to infer the rashness in driving the lorry. 22. Taking note of the fact that revision petitioner failed to offer any explanation whatsoever and has ran away from the place of incident and did not place his version on record after the prosecution has established its case, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in recording an order of conviction for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. 23. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court rightly reappreciated the material evidence while upholding the order of conviction. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5817 CRL.RP No. 100065 of 2019 24. This Court, having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, in the light of 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, reconsidered the material evidence placed on record. When the prosecution has established its case by placing cogent evidence on record, revision petitioner was required to place his version on record about the incident. But having failed to do so, 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: 25. In the case on hand, son of P.W.2 being dead and several others were injured, as pointed out supra, learned Trial Magistrate failed to award any punishment for the proved offences under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and ordered rigorous imprisonment for the offence - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5817 CRL.RP No. 100065 of 2019 punishable under Section 304A of IPC and one month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 187 of MV Act. Learned Trial Magistrate also ordered that both the sentence should run separately. 26. No reasons are forthcoming as to why both the sentences are ordered to run separately, likewise, there is no scope for ordering rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. State should have challenged the order of non sentencing the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC but failed to do so. 27. In the revision filed by the revision petitioner, there is no scope for this Court to order for separate sentence for the aforesaid offences. Only for the purpose of proper sentencing, remitting the matter to the Trial Court at this distance of time, would be a futile exercise. 28. Accordingly, if the rigorous imprisonment is converted into simple imprisonment of one year for the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5817 CRL.RP No. 100065 of 2019 offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, taking note of the fact that no sentence is ordered for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, ends of justice would be met. 29. Likewise, observing that sentence of one month simple imprisonment is ordered for the offence punishable under Section 187 of MV Act to run concurrently with the sentence under Section 304A of IPC would also meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. REG.POINT No.3: 30. 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 conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5817 CRL.RP No. 100065 of 2019 and 304A of IPC and Section 187 of MV Act, sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC is modified as simple imprisonment for one year. iii. Likewise, sentence of one month simple imprisonment ordered for the offence punishable under Section 187 of MV Act to run separately is modified to run concurrently with the imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. iv. Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before Trial Court till 30.04.2025 to serve remaining part of the sentence. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issuing modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 38