- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6566 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100127 OF 2018 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: ANSARKHAN S/O. BASHA AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. SHIVAJINAGAR, DOOR NO.25, BENGALURU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD, THROUGH HALAGERI POLICE STATION, RANEBENNUR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.PC. 1973, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO. 640/2011 BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND I ADDL. JMFC COURT, RANEBENNUR, DATED 28.02.2014 AND JUDGMENT OF CONFIRMATION PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.17/2014, DATED 24.04.2018 BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) AND CONVICTING THE PRESENT REVISION PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 279, 304A, 337, 338 OF IPC AND PASSING AN ORDER OF SENTENCE FOR THE SAID OFFENCES BE SET Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6566 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2018 ASIDE AND THE REVISION PETITIONER IS ORDER TO BE ACQUITTED FROM THE CHARGES ALLEGED AGAINST HIM. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri A.M. Gundawade, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.640/2011 confirmed in Crl.A.No.17/2014 and sentenced as under: “Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C accused is hereby convicted for the alleged offences punishable U/s 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of IPC. Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-for the offence punishable under section 279 of IPC, in case of default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one months. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6566 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2018 Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under section 337 of IPC, in case of default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC, in case of default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under section 304(A) of IPC, in case of default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.” 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: In respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on 24.02.2011 involving an auto rickshaw bearing No.KA- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6566 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2018 17/B-2570 and TATA 407 goods vehicle bearing No.KA- 37/1210, a complaint came to be lodged with Halageri Police Station. 3.1 Complaint averments would reveal that about nine persons were travelling in the goods auto rickshaw towards Yellammana Gudda. Offending vehicle bearing No.KA-37/1210 came from Harihar side and as against the parked auto rickshaw resulting in inmates of the auto rickshaw being injured and one of the inmates a child died on the spot. 3.2 Police registered the case in Crime No.33/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC and after detailed investigation, filed chargesheet against the driver of the goods vehicle bearing No.KA-37/1210. 4. After due trial, accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC and sentenced as referred to supra. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6566 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2018 5. While so convicting, learned Trial Judge has taken into consideration the oral testimony of the injured witnesses viz., PW-4 to PW-7 among them, PW-7 is a minor. Detailed cross-examination of PW-4 to PW-6 did not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. 6. No doubt, the complainant has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, but in the absence of any explanation offered by the accused except stating that some other vehicle suddenly applied the brake; as such, he had to steer the vehicle which ultimately dashed against the auto rickshaw, no other material is forthcoming on record so as to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court re- appreciated the material evidence on record and rejected the appeal. Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6566 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2018 8. Sri A.M. Gundawade, learned counsel for revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that the explanation offered by the accused has not been properly considered by the learned Trial Judge while appreciating the material evidence on record. 9. He would also contend that admittedly in the goods auto rickshaw nine people were being carried on by the driver of the auto rickshaw and therefore, charge sheet filed against the petitioner is incorrect. 10. It is also his contention that the prosecution failed to establish the incident as complainant has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 11. Therefore, conviction of the accused is improper inasmuch as PW-4 to PW-6, PW-12 and PW-17 and sought for allowing the revision petition. 12. Alternatively, Sri Gundawade would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6566 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2018 conviction, considering the fact that the vehicle of the accused also toppled and improper parking of the auto rickshaw, by enhancing the fine amount, sentence may be set aside. 13. Per contra, Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent supports the impugned judgments. 14. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: 1) Whether the accused-revision petitioner makes out a case that the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and patent factual error thus calls for interference? 2) Whether the sentence needs modification? 3) What order? - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6566 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2018 Regarding Point No.1: 16. In the case on hand, road traffic accident occurred on 24.02.2011 at about 7.30 a.m. near Magoda on Highway TATA 407 goods vehicle bearing No.KA- 37/1210 and auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-17/B-2570 and is not in dispute. 17. Admittedly, driver of Ape vehicle bearing No.KA-17/B-2570 plying on the same road, lodged the complaint about the incident. Accused being the driver of TATA 407 goods vehicle bearing No.KA-37/1210 did not take any steps to shift the injured persons to the hospital nor intimated the police about the incident. 18. The nature of the accident is depicted by the photographs produced by the prosecution. Admittedly, auto rickshaw was parked on the left side of the road and offending vehicle has hit the auto rickshaw from the hind side resulting in damages to the offending vehicle on the left hand side near the headlight. On account of the impact - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6566 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2018 of the accident, offending vehicle lost balance and fell down. Accused could escape from the offending vehicle either through broken windshield area or through the door from the cleaner side. 19. The break mark found on the road as depicted in the photograph would show that accused has steered the vehicle after spotting the auto rickshaw to the right side, but was unable to stop the vehicle even after applying the break, which establishes the speed with which the vehicle was moving. 20. However, an explanation is offered by the accused while answering the question No.28 that in the process of avoiding accident with another vehicle, he lost balance and hit the auto rickshaw, which was parked on the left side and thus, accident has not occurred on account of his negligence. 21. Accused being the professional driver, was required to exercise such necessary precaution that too on - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6566 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2018 the highway while driving the offending vehicle which he failed to do so. As a result of negligent driving, accident has occurred. Therefore, charge sheet filed against the accused is perfectly justified. 22. Moreover, accused did not choose to challenge charge sheet filed against him, if there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Ape goods auto rickshaw. 23. Injured witnesses who did not nurture any enmity against the accused have specifically deposed with graphic details as to what exactly happened on the date of accident. Detailed cross-examination of injured witnesses did not yield any positive materials to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. 24. Further, death of the minor child is not in dispute as could be seen from the material evidence on record. Thus, the order of recording conviction of the accused for the aforesaid offences cannot be interfered - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6566 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2018 that too in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative. Regarding Point No.2: 25. In the case of hand, admittedly the auto rickshaw was parked on the left side. Taking note to the fact that injuries sustained by the accused in the very same accident which are minor in nature and also taking note of the fact that accused has applied the break to avoid the accident but was unsuccessful, attributing the negligence though justified, the photographs would depict that accused has tried to avoid the accident. 26. Therefore, reducing the imprisonment period from one year to six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC would meet the ends of justice in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. Regarding point No.3 : 27. In view of the findings of this Court on points No.1 and 2, as above, following order is passed. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6566 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2018 28. Accordingly, the following : 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 and 338 of IPC, sentence ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC is reduced from one year to six months. (iii) Rest of the sentence stands on unaltered. (iv) Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before Trial Court till 15th of May, 2025 for serving remaining part of the sentence. Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order forthwith for issuing the modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 22