- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5421 CRL.RP No. 100119 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100119 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: RUDRAGOUDA S/O. CHINNAYYA BHADRAGOUDAR, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. MALLAPUR S.L, TQ. BADAMI, DISTRICT: BAGALKOTE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. 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 AND R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN C.C.NO.2452 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOTE AND TO ALLOW THIS CRL.REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 13.06.2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 6/2018 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 08.01.2018 PASSED BY PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOTE IN C.C.NO.2452 OF 2014 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 338 AND 304-A OF IPC AND SECTION 187 OF MV ACT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER HEREIN OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 338 AND 304-A OF IPC AND SECTION 187 OF MV ACT. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.04.01 14:55:25 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5421 CRL.RP No. 100119 of 2018 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.Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Accused to suffer an order of conviction in CC No.2452/2014 and sentenced as under: ORDER “The accused is found guilty. Acting under section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C. I hereby convict the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.279, 337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code and U/Sec. Sec. 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, in the following terms: The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and shall pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand) for the offence punishable under Sec.279 of IPC. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5421 CRL.RP No. 100119 of 2018 The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and shall pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred) for the offence punishable under Sec.337 of IPC. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand) for the offence punishable under Sec.338 of IPC. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-A of IPC. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and shall pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred) for the offence punishable under Sec. 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. All sentences shall run concurrently. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5421 CRL.RP No. 100119 of 2018 The interim custody of the vehicle is made absolute. In exercise of the powers conferred under Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C., it is ordered that out of total fine amount, 50% of the amount shall be paid equally to PW.1, 3, 4 and legal heirs of deceased Nagappa Talawar towards compensation. Office shall supply the copy of this judgment to the accused free of cost forthwith.” 3. Accused challenged the validity of the said judgement of conviction and sentence before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.6/2018. 4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and modified the sentence by allowing the appeal in part. Operative portion of the modified order reads as under: ORDER “ The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and conviction order dated 8.1.2018 passed in C.C.2452/2014 by the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bagalkot is modified as under: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5421 CRL.RP No. 100119 of 2018 Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months instead of two years ordered by the trial court for the offence punishable under S.304A of I.P.C., and also pay an additional fine of Rs.2.00 lakhs and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two years as ordered by the trial court. Out of the fine amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs, Rs.1.00 lakh should be paid to the L.Rs. of deceased Nagappa as compensation and out of the remaining amount, complainant P.W.1 shall be paid Rs.50,000/- as he has lost a bull and also his bullock cart has got damaged in the accident. Likewise, the other injured P.W.3 and 4 shall be paid Rs.20,000/- each and the remaining Rs. 10,000/- shall be defrayed towards the prosecution expenses. So far as other part of the sentence is concerned it remains intact. Further the period of imprisonment already undergone shall be set off against the imprisonment ordered. Further the compensation awarded under this proceedings has nothing to do with other compensation the victims are entitled to or already awarded. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5421 CRL.RP No. 100119 of 2018 Send a copy of this judgment along with the L.C.R., to the court concerned forthwith.” 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 6. Sri. Sreenivas B. Naik, learned counsel contended that both the Courts erred in law in not appreciating the material evidence on record in proper manner, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. Alternatively, Sri.Sreenivas B.Naik contend that in the event, this Court upholds the order of conviction, leniency may be shown to the petitioner by setting aside the imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A by enhancing the fine amount further. 8. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the revision grounds in toto. 9. He would further contend that material on record would indicate that after the accident, accused did - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5421 CRL.RP No. 100119 of 2018 not even stop the vehicle and drove away the vehicle. It is the general public who chased him and later on apprehended him and handed him to the police, which show the gravity of the offence and conduct of accused. As such, no further indulgence can be shown by this Court in this revision and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that, accused failed to offer any explanation to the incident. 11. Death of Nagappa in the road traffic accident occurred on 03.07.2014 involving lorry bearing No.KA- 29/9165 stood established by placing both oral and documentary evidence on record. Injured persons viz., complainant, Ashavva and Tayavva are also supported the case of the prosecution who are admittedly inmates of bullock cart. 12. PW.5 Hanuman Harakeri was a chance witness who has also supported the case of the prosecution in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5421 CRL.RP No. 100119 of 2018 toto. He deposed that he had been proceeding towards his land to procure the grass and at that juncture he has seen the lorry driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bullock cart from the hind side, resulting in the death of Nagappa and others being injured and one bull also died in the accident. Therefore, conviction of the accused for the aforesaid offences is just and proper. 13. Sentence was modified by the First Appellate Court by directing the enhancement of the fine amount and ordering compensation as referred to supra. 14. Being further aggrieved by the same, revision petitioner is before this Court. 15. On noticing the material facts and evidence placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of conviction recorded by both the Courts and sentence modified by the First Appellate Court needs no further interference, having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5421 CRL.RP No. 100119 of 2018 16. Sentence of six months for the offence under Section 304A of IPC is justified in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi1. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) Revision petition is merit less and is hereby dismissed. (ii) Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before the trial court till 15.04.2025 for serving remaining part of the sentence. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 48 1 (2015) 5 SCC 182