- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5905 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100109 OF 2017 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MOHAMMAD RAFIQ S/O. ALLABAKSH PATAN, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. KOLHAR BASAVAN BAGEVADI, TALUK AND DISTRICT: BIJAPUR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI D.B. KARIGAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VEERABHADRA R. SHIVANAGU, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY BILAGI POLICE, BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BY THE S.P.P. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 379 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE COURT BELOW AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 16.04.2013 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BILAGI IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.128 OF 2011 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE SITTING AT BAGALKOTE IN CRL. APPEAL NO.46 OF 2013 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 304 (A) OF IPC AND 187 OF M.V.ACT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGED CHARGE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.09 15:58:02 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5905 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.D.B.Karigar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Accused to suffered an order of conviction in CC No.128/2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC R/W Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced as under: “The accused found guilty of the offences punishable U/Sec. 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC and Sec. 187 of M.V.Act In exercise of powers conferred U/Sec.255(II) of Cr.P.C the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.279 of IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-in default shall undergo SI for 10 days. Further, the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 337 of IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default shall undergo SI for five days. Further, the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304(A) of IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for one year. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5905 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2017 Further, the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.187 of M.V.Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default shall undergo SI for 10 days. The bail bond of the accused and of surety shall stands cancelled. The interim custody of the three wheeler bearing registration No. KA: 29:A:898 to its owner is hereby made absolute. Office is hereby directed to furnish the copy of this judgment to the accused free of cost forthwith.” 3. Validity of the order of conviction and sentence was questioned before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.46/2013. 4. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. But modified the conviction order only with regard to the offences under Section 279 IPC and 187 of M.V. Act. Operative portion of the order of the First Appellate Court reads as under: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5905 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2017 “The appeal filed by appellant/accused under S.374 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. The judgement of conviction passed by Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi in C.C. No.128/2011 dated 16.4.2013 for the offences punishable under S.304A of IPC and S.187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is hereby confirmed. The order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court for the offence under S.279 and 337 of IPC is set aside.’ 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this Appeal. 6. Sri.D.B.Karigar, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that both the Courts have wrongly convicted the accused by not properly appreciating the material evidence, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. Alternatively, Sri.D.B.Karigar, learned counsel for the petitioner wound contended that in the event of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5905 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2017 this Court upholding the order of conviction by enhancing the fine amount, sentence of one year imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A IPC may be set aside. 8. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara, learned HCGP supports the impugned judgments. He would further contend that PW1 is none other than another inmate of the tum tum vehicle, a goods three wheeler bearing No.KA-29/A-898 and he is also injured in the very same accident and he has supported the case of the prosecution so also the other injured. 9. He would further contend that accident was occurred only on the negligent driving of the said three wheeler by the accused and therefore, hardly there is any scope for interference with the conviction order. 10. He would further contend that since the valuable life has been lost in the road traffic accident and two more persons have suffered injuries, there is no scope for reduction of the sentence and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5905 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2017 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, the following points would 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 13. In the case on hand, road traffic accident that occurred on 05.12.2010 involving the three wheeler goods vehicle bearing No.KA-29/A-898 stands established by placing cogent and convincing material evidence on record. 14. Accused is the driver of the said goods vehicle as on the date of incident has also established by placing the documentary evidence on record; especially the indemnity bond executed by the owner of the Auto - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5905 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2017 Rickshaw, wherein it has been mentioned that accused was the driver as on the date of accident. 15. Place of incident and time of incident are not in dispute and it is at 14:45 hours on old Korti cross on NH- 218. Therefore, hardly there is any scope for human error and accident has occurred on account of negligence attributable to the petitioner herein. 16. Further, the inmate of the auto rickshaw who is also injured is complainant. He is examined as PW1 who has supported the case of the prosecution. He deposed with graphic details of the accident that occurred on 05/12/2010. 17. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that testimony of injured witness is to be kept on higher pedestal inasmuch as she would not falsely implicate the accused in the case allowing the real culprit to escape away from the rigors of law. 18. Further, IMV report shows that there is no mechanical defect. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5905 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2017 19. Crowning all these aspects of the matter, at the time of recording the accused statement, accused failed to offer any explanation to incriminatory circumstances and also failed to place his version about the incident. 20. Under such circumstances, by following the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan1, the conviction order recorded by trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court, needs no interference in this revision. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative. Regarding Point No.2 21. Sri. D.B.Karigar, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that that accused is the only bread earner of the family and instead of sending him to prison, reasonable amount of fine may be enhanced and sentence of imprisonment may be set aside with regard to the offence under Section 304A IPC. 1 (2012) 9 SCC 284 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5905 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2017 22. Taking note of the fact that accused failed to admit the injured persons to the hospital nor intimated the incident to the police, no other mitigating circumstances are available other than that he is the bread earner of the family. 23. Following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi2, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the imprisonment of one year is reduced to six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and allowing the rest of the sentence to remain unaltered would meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the negative. Regarding point No.3 : 24. In view of the findings of this Court on points No.1 and 2, as above, following order is passed. 2 (2015) 5 SCC 182 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5905 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2017 ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, sentence of imprisonment ordered by the Trial Magistrate for the offence under Section 304A of IPC is reduced from one year to six months’ simple imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.10,000/- to be payable on or before 30th April, 2025. (iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount, order of the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court would stand restored automatically. (iv) Rest of the sentence stands unaltered. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5905 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2017 (v) Office is directed in the return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order forthwith for issuing modified conviction order. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB-Upto par No.22 NAA- Para No.23 to end CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 28