- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6937 CRL.RP No. 100042 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100042 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: LAXMAN S/O. HANAMANTH BAJANTRI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE AND DRIVER, R/O. BAJANTRI GALLI, GULEDAGUDDA, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOTE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH P.S.I., BAGALKOTE, RURAL POLICE STATION, REPT. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY II-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN CRL.A.NO.03/2012, DATED 13.11.2018 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, BAGALKOTE IN C.C.NO.183/2011 DATED 16.01.2012 FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 304-A OF IPC AND SECTION 187 UNDER SECTION 3 R/W. SECTION 181 & UNDER SECTION 146 R/W. 196 OF INDIAN MOTOR VEHICLE ACT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6937 CRL.RP No. 100042 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Prakash N.Hosamane, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.183/2011 confirmed in Crl.A.No.3/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 304A IPC and Section 187(3) r/w Section 146 R/w Section 196 Of MV Act and sentenced as under: “Acting U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. I hereby convict an accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 279, 337 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 187, 3 R/W Sec. 181 and Sec.146 R/w Sec. 196 of M.V.Act in the following terms: (a) For the offence punishable U/Sec.279 of Indian Penal Code, an accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months and he - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6937 CRL.RP No. 100042 of 2019 shall liable to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. (b) For the offence punishable U/Sec.337 of Indian Penal Code, an accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months and he shall liable to pay fine of Rs.500/-(Five Hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. (c) For the offence punishable U/Sec.304(A) of Indian Penal Code, an accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for eighteen months and he shall liable to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. (d) For the offence punishable U/Sec.187 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act, an accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen CC No 183/2 days and he shall liable to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Five Hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6937 CRL.RP No. 100042 of 2019 (e) For the offence punishable U/Sec.3 R/w Sec. 181 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act, an accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month and he shall liable to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Five Hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. (f) For the offence punishable U/Sec.146 r/w Sec. 196 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act, an accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month and he shall liable to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. As per provision of Sec.357(3) of Cr.P.C. an accused is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-each to the family of deceased Hanamanth Timmanna Hosamani and Rajappa Yankappa Bandiwaddar. All sentences shall run concurrently.” 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6937 CRL.RP No. 100042 of 2019 3.1 Revision petitioner was the driver of the tractor trailer unit bearing No.KA-29, TA-1759-60. It met with an accident near Arihalla bridge at Shirur-Guledagudda road on 07.07.2010 at 6 am. Trailer was loaded with floor tiles. Apart from the floor tiles, there were passangers (labourers) in the trailer unit. Because of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer unit, the joint which would join the trailer to the tractor broke; as a result the trailer turtled and inmates sustained injuries and two of the inmates died. Based on the complaint lodged, police registered the case in crime No.111/2010 and investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner. 3.2 After due trial taking note of the oral testimony of the injured witnesses, the trial judge convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 3.3 Trial judge also took into consideration that once the prosecution has established its case, accused was required to place his version about the incident and he - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6937 CRL.RP No. 100042 of 2019 failed to do so except denying all the incriminatory circumstances including the accident. As such convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 3.4 Learned judge in the First Appellate Court, re- appreciated the material on record and dismissed the appeal of the accused. 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 5. Sri.Prakash Hosamane, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts failed to note that accident has not occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor trailer unit; but it is on account of breakage in the joint which was used for the purpose of joining the trailer to the tractor. Therefore, no negligence can be attributed to the revision petitioner and order of conviction recorded by both the Courts has thus resulted in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6937 CRL.RP No. 100042 of 2019 miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. Alternatively, Sri.Prakash Hosamane would contend that in the event this Court upholds the order of conviction having regard to the huge compensation awarded by the trial Magistrate, the imprisonment of 18 months ordered by the learned trial Magistrate for the offence under Section 304A of IPC needs to be set aside, if need by enhancing the compensation amount in a reasonably. 7. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments. 8. He would further contend that being the driver of the tractor and trailer unit, it was the duty of the revision petitioner to find out whether the tractor and trailer unit are in order before bringing the said unit on the road. Also it was his duty to find out whether the trailer - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6937 CRL.RP No. 100042 of 2019 unit is properly joined to the tractor and it was intact so as to avoid the possible accident. When accused failed to do so, he is liable for the negligence as is contemplated under Section 279 of IPC resulting in death of two of the inmates of the trailer unit attracting all ingredients for the offence under Section 304 A of IPC and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal. 9. He also pointed out that admittedly, no inmates could have been carried in the trailer as it is utter violation of the provisions of Motor vehicles act. Said aspect has been rightly appreciated by the learned trial judge while convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences and ordering suitable sentences for the aforesaid provisions under the motor vehicles Act for which no explanation whatsoever is not forthcoming on behalf of the revision petitioner and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6937 CRL.RP No. 100042 of 2019 11. On such perusal of the material on record, the following points arise for consideration of this Court:- i. Whether revision petitioner would make out the case that the impugned judgment are suffering from legal infirmities, perversity and patent factual error and sought for interference? ii. Whether the sentence needs modification? iii. What order? Regarding Point No.1: 12. In the case on hand, accused being the driver of the tractor and trailer unit, which met with road traffic accident on 07.07.2010 is not in dispute. IMV report did not indicate any mechanical defects in the tractor. 13. The peculiar facts and circumstances which resulted in the accident is that the hook that has been used for joining the trailer unit to the tractor got broke and thereafter, the trailer turtled. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6937 CRL.RP No. 100042 of 2019 14. Admittedly, it was the duty of the revision petitioner to find out whether there was a proper joining of the hook of the trailer unit on to the tractor unit and it is secured properly. In the ordinary course, if the hook is properly maintained, it would not break by itself. 15. But, in the case on hand, if the tractor was pulling the trailer with a load of floor tiles, apart from the inmates thereon, because of the improper driving and applying the break all of a sudden, by the driver of the tractor who admittedly did not possess any driving license to bring the tractor on road, the hook got disconnected on account of moment of inertia and the loaded trailer turtled resulting in the loss of two valuable human lives and other inmates having sustained injuries who are admittedly being carried in the trailer against the statutory provisions of Motor vehicles Act. 16. 16. Taking note of these aspects of the matter that the revision petitioner did not possess the valid license to bring the tractor on road and not properly driving the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6937 CRL.RP No. 100042 of 2019 tractor when especially there was a heavy load in the trailer, the negligence on the part of the accused stands established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record especially taking note of the testimony of the injured inmates of the trailer unit. 17. Admittedly, none of those witnesses nurtured any previous enmity or animosity against the revision petitioner to falsely depose against him. Crowning all these aspects of the matter, accused failed to offer any explanation to the incriminatory materials that were placed on record by the prosecution nor placed his version about the incident. 18. Under such circumstances, conviction order recorded by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 19. View of this Court is also fortified by the principles of law enunciated by Hon’ble Apex Court in the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6937 CRL.RP No. 100042 of 2019 case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan1 Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative. REGARDING POINT NO.2: 20. In the case on hand, two deaths have taken place and sum Rs.50,000/- each is ordered by the trial Magistrate as compensation to the dependents of the persons who lost their life in the road traffic accident. 21. Moreover, taking note of the fact that the accused did not possess the valid driving license, the argument put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner that revision petitioner is entitled for setting aside the imprisonment of 18 months for the offence under Section 304(A) of the IPC cannot be countenanced in law. 22. However, following the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi2. If the imprisonment is reduced from 18 months 1 (2012) 9 SCC 284 2 (2015) 5 SCC 182 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6937 CRL.RP No. 100042 of 2019 to one year ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. REGARDING POINT NO.3: 23. In view of the findings of this Court on points No.1 and 2 as above, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A IPC and Section 187(3) r/w Section 146 R/w Section 196 of MV Act, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC is reduced from 18 months is reduced to 1 year. (iii) Rest of the sentences stands unaltered. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6937 CRL.RP No. 100042 of 2019 (iv) Office to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant. (v) Time is extended for the revision petitioner to surrender before the trial Court till 31.05.2025. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB-upto para 17 AC-Para 18 to end. CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18