- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6725 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100246 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHEKHAHMED S/O RAJAHAMADSAB, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: ISLAMPUR, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. …PETITIONER (BY MISS. VINAYA KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATES) AND: THE STATE BY RURAL POLICE STATION, GANGAVATHI, THROUGH ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) R/W 401 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 17.07.2019 IN CRL. APPEAL NO.02/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT AND THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 20.12.2013 IN C.C.NO.61/2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, GANGAVATI AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 279, 304-A OF IPC AND SEC. 187 OF IMV ACT IN THE Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6725 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2019 INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FURTHER BE TO ACQUIT THE ACCUSED OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Miss.Vinaya Kuppelur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.N.R.Kuppelur, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.61/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 187 of the IMV Act and sentenced as under: “Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC., and 187 of IMV Act. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default simple imprisonment for 30 days. Accused shall sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 187 of IMV Act in default simple imprisonment for 10 days. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6725 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2019 No separate sentence is passed in respect of offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. The sentence shall run consecutively. Bail bond of the accused and surety stands cancelled. Copy of the judgment shall be furnished to the accused free of cost.” 3. Validity of the order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.02/2014. Said appeal was dismissed on merits. 4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 4.1. In respect of road traffic accident that occurred on 24.11.2012 at about 8.00 p.m., a complaint came to be lodged on 25.11.2012 alleging that on 24.11.2012, at about 8.00 p.m., on Gangavathi – Sindhnur Road, near Kalyanappa Javali Complex, Karatagi, accused being the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-19/A-2679, came from Karatagi side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Tippanna S/o Pakeerappa (deceased), who is aged about 60 years from the hind side. As a result, Tippanna sustained bleeding injuries on the head and he was shifted to VIMS Hospital, Bellari. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6725 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2019 4.2. Despite best treatment, Tippanna did not survive. Therefore, action was sought against the accused. 5. After thorough investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 6. After due trial, accused was convicted and sentenced as referred to supra. 7. While so convicting the accused, learned Trial Magistrate took into consideration the inquest mahazar and post-mortem report which would indicate that Tippanna died on account of accidental injuries sustained by him on 24.11.2012. It is also found from the records that in the IMV report, it is found that there was no mechanical defect. 8. Further, accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances put to him which was found from the evidence of the prosecution witness but failed to place his version about the incident on record. 9. Further, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court on reappreciation of the material evidence placed on record, did - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6725 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2019 not find any merit in the grounds urged on behalf of the accused and therefore, dismissed the appeal. 10. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision petition. 11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that Tippanna came suddenly on the road and therefore, accident has occurred which has not been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate in the impugned judgments and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition. 12. She would further contend that accused is now aged about 60 years and therefore, leniency may be shown with regard to sentence and sought for allowing the revision petition. 13. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments. 14. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6725 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2019 15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that petitioner is the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-19/A-2679. Accident has occurred on 24.11.2012 at about 8.00 p.m. on Gangavathi – Sindhnur Road near Kalyanappa Javali Complex, Karatagi. 16. Admittedly, width of the road is wide enough as could be seen from the spot sketch. Accused failed to place his version about the incident and he denied all the incriminatory circumstances found against him. It was for the accused to spell out that he tried his level best to avoid the accident. 17. Post-mortem report and inquest mahazar would make out clear that Tippanna (deceased) sustained head injuries. 18. P.W.7 is the eye witness to the incident. In his cross-examination, he has answered that he is working as clerk in Karatagi and his house is situated near the house of Tippanna. He denied the suggestion that he has given false evidence only to help the dependants of Tippanna. He has specifically answered that Tippanna has crossed him from western side and at that juncture, the lorry came from the hind - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6725 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2019 side and dashed against the deceased. Said answer in the cross-examination is sufficient enough to sustain the conviction order. Likewise, P.W.8 being another eye witness to the incident, has also supported the case of the prosecution in toto. 19. Taking note of the fact that P.W.7 and 8 being strangers to the revision petitioner, hardly there is any scope to accept the argument put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 20. In view of the above factual aspects of the matter, taking note of the scope of the revision petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that, conviction of the revision petitioner needs no interference. 21. This would take this Court to the next submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner that accused is now aged about 60 years and therefore, leniency may be shown. At the time of incident, accused was aged about 47 or 48 years. Therefore, age of the revision petitioner alone cannot be a ground for showing any leniency. 22. However, for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, ordering sentence of rigorous imprisonment - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6725 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2019 cannot be sustained and same needs to be modified as simple imprisonment. 23. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussions, 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 and Section 187 of the IMV Act, sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months is modified to simple imprisonment for a period of six months. iii. Time is granted for the revision petitioner till 30.05.2025 to surrender before the Court for serving the sentence. iv. 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 List No.: 2 Sl No.: 32