- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492 CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100222 OF 2018 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI MAHAMMAD HANIF JAINUM KHALIFA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. KSRTC DRIVER, R/O. HALYAL ROAD, ATHANI, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SUNIL KHOT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ATHANI PS, DIST. BELAGAVI, NOW REP. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 26.12.2015 MADE IN C.C.NO.933/2011 PASSED BY THE I- ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, ATHANI CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 & 304-A OF IPC AND SEC. 134 R/W. 187 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AND SENTENCING TO UNDERGO SI FOR 4 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 OF IPC AND SI FOR 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304-A OF IPC AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 26/12/2017 PASSED BY THE VII-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.04.02 11:20:35 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492 CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2018 JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT CHIKODI IN CRL.A.NO.12/2016 AS THE SAME BEING NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 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 Sunil Khot for Sri Ramachandra A. Mali, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 2. Accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.933/2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’, for short) confirmed in Crl.A.No.12/2016, is the revision petitioner. 3. Accused has been convicted for the for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and sentenced as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492 CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2018 “The accused directed to under go SI for 4 months for the offence punishable u/s 279 of Indian Penal Code. The accused directed to under go SI for 6 months for the offence punishable u/s 304(A) of Indian Penal Code. The vehicles released in favour of applicants are made absolute.” 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are as under: 4.1. Accused was the driver of bus bearing No.KA- 23/F-390 which was proceeding from Athani to Miraj. One of the inmates of the bus Smt. Shobha Ramdas Mali was required to get down from the bus near Mallayya Temple cross. Accordingly, herself and other passengers made a request to the conductor to stop the bus. The conductor gave signal to stop the bus to the driver of the bus by whistling. Accordingly, bus was stopped. Such of the passengers, who are required to get down from the bus in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492 CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2018 the said stop, got down from the bus and Shobha being the last passenger was getting down from the bus. At that juncture, without noticing the same, driver of the bus moved the bus in a negligent manner and whereby Shobha fell down from the bus and sustained injuries. Thereafter, on hearing hue and cry made by other inmates of the bus, bus was stopped. 4.2. Injured – Shobha was shifted to Mangasuli Hospital at the first instance. Later on, she was shifted to Meeraj Hospital for higher medical care. Despite the same, said Shobha did not survive and succumbed to the injuries. As such, complaint came to be filed. 5. Police after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner. 6. After due trial, accused was convicted for the aforesaid offence and sentenced as referred to supra. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492 CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2018 7. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.12/2016. 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records and reappreciated the material evidence placed on record and upheld the order of conviction and sentenced by dismissing the appeal filed by the accused. 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, revision petitioner is before this Court, in this revision. 10. Sri.Sunil Khot, 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 evidence placed on record especially, the half supported deposition of the conductor of the bus wherein he has not specifically stated that he does not know the reason for the accident and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492 CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2018 convicted the accused resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. He would also contend that there was no nexus established by the prosecution to the alleged road traffic accident and death of Shobha and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 12. He would also contend that in the event, this Court, upholding the order of conviction, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced by enhancing the fine amount. 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 conductor has specifically stated that Shobha and others requested the bus to be stopped near Mallayya temple cross and accordingly, bus was stopped. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492 CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2018 15. He would further contend that after the bus was stopped, conductor has given the signal to move the bus but in the process of alighting the bus, Shobha fell down and conductor could hear the hue and cry and asked the driver to stop the bus and noted Shobha got injured while alighting the bus; which is sufficient enough to understand that it is the accused who drove the bus without properly verifying that all the passengers had alighted the bus near Mallayya temple cross resulting in the accident on account of negligent act attributable 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 and perversity and thus, calls for interference? - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492 CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2018 2. Whether the sentence is excessive? 3. What order? REG.POINT No.1: 18. In the case on hand, revision petitioner being the driver of bus bearing No.KA-23/F-390 on 17.04.2011, driver of the bus who was plying from Athani to Miraj is not in dispute. Bus was stopped near Mallayya temple cross as per the instructions of the conductor/P.W.6. 19. After the bus was stopped, few passengers got down from the bus and in the process of alighting from the bus, Shobha got injured on account of the negligent driving of the bus by the revision petitioner. 20. It is the specific case of the prosecution that even before she could alight from the bus near Mallayya temple cross, the driver of the bus moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner without verifying that all the passengers have alighted from the bus resulting in falling down of the Shobha from the bus resulting in injury. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492 CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2018 21. Material evidence placed on record in this regard is sufficient enough to uphold the order of conviction having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. 22. No doubt, P.W.6 has turned partly hostile to the case of the prosecution. But it is settled principles of law that oral testimony of a hostile witness cannot be brushed aside in toto and it is always open for the Court to appreciate such portion of the oral testimony of the witness who has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution so long as that portion would probabilise the case of the prosecution. 23. In the case on hand, Shobha being inmate of the bus and was required to delight at Mallayya temple cross and for which purpose, P.W.6 has given instructions to the driver and stopping of the bus is also deposed by P.W.6 with graphic details. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492 CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2018 24. However, it is the case of the conductor that after all the passengers alighted from the bus, he gave the signal for the driver to move the bus. But to the extent he has supported the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the defence did not cross-examine P.W.6. 25. Admittedly, Shobha who was hale and healthy, who sustained injury in the process of alighting from the bus. Bus was immediately stopped on hearing the hue and cry of the other passengers as per the deposition of P.W.6. Thereafter, both P.W.6 and driver and other passengers got down from the bus and noted that there was serious injury caused to the Shobha. Therefore, they shifted Shobha in the very same bus to the Mangasuli hospital. 26. Thereafter, she was shifted for higher medical care in Meeraj Hospital. Shobha who was hale and healthy, having got injured while in the course of alighting from the bus, on account of the fact that bus moved even - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492 CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2018 before she could alight from the bus is the negligence that is attributable to the driver. 27. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming from the driver of the bus either at the time of recording the accused statement nor he got examined to establish that he was not negligent and it is the Shobha who did not alight from the bus with due care and caution resulting in the accident. Therefore, conviction is to be maintained in the light of the principles of law enunciated in the case of Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 (9) SCC 284. 28. Under such circumstances, in the scope of limited 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 is just and proper. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in negative. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492 CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2018 REG.POINT No.2: 29. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that mercy may be shown to the revision petitioner as he is the driver of KSRTC bus. In the first place, such a submission cannot be countenanced in law as the driver has denied the accident where as P.W.6 admitted the incident. 30. Further, in the absence of any explanation and taking note of the fact that only six months imprisonment is imposed for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, there is no further scope for reduction of the imprisonment period following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182. 31. However, separate sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC cannot be countenanced in law as it is the Shobha who was the only - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492 CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2018 person who was injured and ultimately succumbed to injuries. 32. Therefore, by applying the principle of Doctrine of Merger, separate sentence for the offence punishable under Section 279 is impermissible as for the offence under Section 304A of IPC, six months imprisonment is ordered. To that extent, the sentence needs modification. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. REG.POINT No.3: 33. 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 and 304A of IPC, separate sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492 CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2018 Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC for a period of four months is hereby set aside. iii. Rest of the sentence stands unaltered. iv. Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court for serving remaining part of the sentence till 30.04.2025. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA para 1 to 4 KAV para 4.1 to end CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 36