- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4836 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100015 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI SHANKRAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA TALAVAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. SANGANAL, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583231. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.C. JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY. ITS STATE PUBLIC PRSOECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. (through koppal rural p.s.) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI praveena y. devareddiyavara, hcgp) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.12.2022 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOPPAL, IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 38/2021 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 279 AND 304A OF IPC AND SEC. 3 R/W 181 OF IMV ACT, PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KOPPAL, IN C.C. NO. 899/2017 DATED 01.10.2021 AND SET THE PETITIONER AT LIBERTY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.24 15:30:17 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4836 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of parties, matter is taken up for final disposa. 2. Heard Sri.B.S.Jnanayyaswami, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveen Y. Devareddyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 3. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.899/2017 dated 01.10.2021 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 181 of IMV Act and sentenced as under: “The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months with fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo another one month simple imprisonment. The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4836 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2023 Five Thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo another three month simple imprisonment. The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month with fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 181 of IMV Act, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo another fifteen days simple imprisonment. All the sentences shall run concurrently.” 4. Further, accused approached the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.38/2021 dated 14.12.2022 on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Koppal challenging the validity of the said judgment. 5. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 5.1. A complaint came to be lodged with Koppal Rural Police alleging the commission of offences under Section 279, 304A of IPC and under Section 3 read with Section 181 of IMV Act in respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on 20.02.20217 at about 6.45 p.m. where under accused being the driver of the tractor bearing - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4836 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2023 No.KA-26/TA.4780 and trailer bearing No.KA-26/TA.4781 drew the same in a rash and negligent manner near Gangavathi Yelburga Road and dashed against the motorcycle bearing No. No.KA-36/Y.5990. 5.2. Due to the impact of the accident, rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to Koppal District Hospital for the first aid treatment and thereafter, he was shifted to SDM hospital at Dharwad for higher medical care. But on 05.03.2017 at about 2.08 a.m., despite best treatment, injured succumbed to injuries and he was declared dead. 6.3. After registering the case in Crime No.33/2017, investigation agency conducted detailed investigation and filed the charge sheet against the driver of the tractor and trailer unit. 6. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance, summoned the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4836 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2023 7. After due trial, learned Trail Magistrate convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.38/2021 challenging the validity of the conviction and sentence. 9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the parties in detail and dismissed the appeal by considered judgment dated 14.12.2022. 10. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision petition. 11. Sri.B.C.Jnanayya Swami, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that in the case on hand, even though the prosecution examined 13 witnesses on its behalf as P.W.1 to 13, material evidence placed on record - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4836 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2023 is not sufficient to sustain an order of conviction inasmuch as spot mahajar witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and so also, inquest mahazar witnesses having died during the pendency of the trial, there is no proper proof as to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer unit by the accused, which has not been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate while passing the order of conviction and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition. 12. Alternatively, he would contend that in the event, this Court, upholding the order of conviction, may set aside the imprisonment of the revision petitioner by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and sought for allowing the revision petition to that extent. 13. Per contra, Sri.Praveen Y. Dvareddyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4836 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2023 14. He would further contend that in the case on hand, there is a direct evidence in the form of complainant who is examined as P.W.1. He is a witness to the accident and he has deposed before the Court with graphic details as to what was the reason for the accident as he has seen the incident from a distance of about 100 feet. 15. He has also stated that cement pipes were loaded horizontally in the trailer unit beyond its capacity and accident has occurred wherein the cement pipes fell on the rider of the motorcycle - Manjunath and therefore, Manjunath sustained injuries. 16. He would contend that learned Trial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material evidence on record while passing an order of conviction and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 17. With regard to the alternate submission, he would contend that one valuable life has been lost due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4836 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2023 and trailer unit and therefore, no mercy can be shown and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 18. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 19. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the prosecution 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 Nos.1 AND 2: 20. In the case on hand, accidental death of Manjunath being the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA- 36/Y.5990 stands established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. Revision petitioner being the driver of the tractor and trailer unit bearing number KA-26/TA.4780-4781 is not in dispute. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4836 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2023 21. Police after thorough investigation filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner which is not challenged by him. 22. Admittedly, as on the date of incident, trailer unit carried cement pipes. Eye witness to the incident has deposed before the Court that instead of keeping the cement pipes vertically, they were loaded in a horizontal manner and because of the movement of the trailer; cement pipes rolled down from the trailer and fell on the rider of the motorcycle – Manjunath, whereby he sustained injuries. 23. Admittedly, complainant/P.W.1 did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity as against the revision petitioner to depose falsely. P.W.1 has withstood the searching cross-examination on behalf of the revision petitioner and he has maintained that he has witnessed the incident at about 100 feet away from the place of incident. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4836 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2023 24. Merely on the ground that spot mahazar witnesses have turned hostile and so also one of the inquest mahazar witness would not ipso facto result in doubting the case of the prosecution especially, when PW.1 has narrated the incident with graphic details. 25. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the learned Trial Magistrate also noticed the fact there was no explanation whatsoever forthcoming from the revision petitioner at the time of recording the accused statement, rightly convicted the revision petitioner for the aforesaid offences. 26. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court reappreciated the material evidence and rightly dismissed the appeal. 27. With the limited powers of the rivisional jurisdiction, this Court reconsidered the material on record. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4836 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2023 28. On such reconsideration, in a matter of this nature, revision petitioner is also required to spell out as to what resulted in the accident. In the case on hand, on perusal of the accused statement, it is crystal clear that revision petitioner had failed to utilize the opportunity of explaining the incriminatory circumstances and so also to place his version about the incident. There is no defence evidence placed on record by the revision petitioner. 29. Mere denying the case of the prosecution would not absolve the responsibility on the revision petitioner especially when material evidence of prosecution is overwhelming in nature which would point out the guilt of the accused. 30. Following the principles of law enunciated in the case of in Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 (9) SCC 284, this Court is of the considered opinion that conviction of revision petitioner recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate for the aforesaid offences and affirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4836 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2023 needs no interference in this revision. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in negative. REG.POINT No.2: 31. In the case on hand, rider of the motorcycle did not lose his life on 05.03.2017. In other words, he had undergone treatment at the first instance in Koppal Government Hospital and subsequently, at SDM Hospital, Dharwad from 20.02.2017 till 05.03.2017. 32. Sufficient medical treatment has been given to the injured but because of the injuries sustained by the rider of the motorcycle, he has to ultimately lose his life. 33. Taking note of the fact that revision petitioner being the driver of the tractor and trailer unit, he was aged about 45 years at the time of incident and has a family to maintain as he is the soul bread earner of his family, reducing the imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A IPC from one year to six months, would meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount in a - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4836 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2023 sum of Rs.25,000/- which can be paid as compensation to be dependents of deceased. Accordingly point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. REG.POINT No.3: 34. In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 as above, following: ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused/revision petitioner for the offences punishable under section 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 181 of IMV Act, sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC is reduced to six months by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- payable on or before 30.04.2025. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4836 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2023 iii. Failure to make the payment of enhanced fine amount would automatically result in restoration of the sentence ordered by learned Trial Judge. iv. Out of the fine amount recovered, entire enhanced fine amount of Rs.25,000/- is order to be paid as compensation to the dependents of deceased – Manjunath. v. Rest of the sentence stands unaltered. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV/CT:PA/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17