- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6567 CRL.RP No. 100194 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.100194 OF 2018 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MAHAMAD RAFIK S/O. MAKBULSAB HATTIMATTUR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. RATTIHALLI, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD, THROUGH HIREKERUR POLICE STATION. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. 1973, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.64/2011 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HIREKERUR, DATED 26.06.2015 AND JUDGMENT OF CONFIRMATION PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.53/2015 DATED 13.08.2018, BY THE II-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR), FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.25 14:50:23 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6567 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2018 279, 304A, 337, 338 OF IPC AND ORDER OF THE SENTENCE FOR THE SAID OFFENCES AND THE REVISION PETITIONER BE 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.64/2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced as under: “Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of I.P.C. For having committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 279 of IPC., the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine shall under-go simple imprisonment for four months. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6567 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2018 For having committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 337 of IPC., the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine shall under-go simple imprisonment for two months. For having committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 338 of IPC., the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine shall under-go simple imprisonment for four months. For having committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 304(A) of IPC., the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and shall pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine shall under- go simple imprisonment for eight months. The bail bond of the accused and his surety executed at the commencement of the case, stands cancelled. Interim custody of the vehicle is made absolute after the expiry of the appeal period.” 3. Order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in Crl.A.No.53/2015 by a considered judgment dated 13.08.2018. 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6567 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2018 A complaint came to be lodged with Hirekerur Police Station in respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on 16.01.2007 involving Mahindra Tempo bearing No.KA- 15/1728 wherein a valuable human life has been lost and few others have been injured with simple and grievous injuries. 5. Gist of the complaint averments reveal that accused being the driver of Mahendra Tempo bearing No.KA-15/1728 while proceeding from Masuur, picked up the passengers and drive the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and all of a sudden applied the break to avoid a pothole whereby vehicle lost control of the revision petitioner and toppled, resulting in death of one of the inmates namely Basappa son of Kariyappa and other inmates being injured with simple and grievous injuries. 6. Police after registering the case, conducted detailed investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6567 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2018 7. After due trial, learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 8. While so convicting the accused, learned Trial Magistrate has taken into consideration that injured witnesses have supported the case of prosecution in toto. 9. However, P.W.2 - Somappa S/o Veerabasappa Basavanal and P.W.7 Shankrappa S/o Bailappa Maliyappanavar have turned hostile and P.W.8 – Ajjappa S/o Bailappa Maliyappanavar have turned partly hostile to the case of the prosecution. While P.W.9, 12 and 19 have supported the case of the prosecution in toto. P.W.8 have partly supported the case of prosecution. 10. It is the defence of the accused that in order to avoid a pothole, on account of an opposite vehicle moving in a rash and negligent manner, the vehicle was steered to the left side and petitioner lost control over the vehicle whereby it fell into a small ditch and accident has occurred. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6567 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2018 11. To substantiate the same, there is no material evidence placed on record. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused. 12. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.53/2015. 13. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court rightly reappreciated the material evidence placed on record and dismissed the appeal filed by the accused. 14. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision petition. 15. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence placed on record especially, the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of P.W.8, resulting in gross injustice to the revision petitioner and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6567 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2018 16. Alternatively, he would contend that in the event of this Court, upholding the order of conviction, may enhance the fine amount reasonably and sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, needs to be set aside and sought for allowing the revision petition to such extent. 17. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments. 18. He would further contend that even though few of the inmates of the vehicle in question have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, in view of the fact that few of the inmates namely P.W.5 – Sheetamma, P.W.9 – Kamalamma, P.W.12 – H.M.Basavaraja and P.W.19 – Siddavirappa having supported the case of the prosecution and P.W.8 – Ajjappa, has partly supported the case of the prosecution, order of conviction needs no interference. He also contends that no explanation is - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6567 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2018 forthcoming on behalf of the accused as to the incident and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 19. He also supports the imposition of imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC in view of the fact that Basappa S/o. Kariyappa having lost his life in the accident and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 20. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 21. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the revision petitioner makes out a case that impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus, calls for interference? 2. Whether the sentence is excessive? 3. What order? - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6567 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2018 REG.POINT No.1: 22. In the case on hand, road traffic accident which has occurred by Mahindra Tempo bearing No.KA-15/1728 being toppled by the rash and negligent driving by the revision petitioner is established by placing cogent evidence on record. 23. Admittedly, Basappa S/o. Kariyappa has lost his life. Ex.P.14 is the post-mortem report, Exs.P.15 to 42 are wound certificates of the inmates of the vehicle. No doubt, few of the inmates of the vehicle have turned totally hostile to the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, they are all the persons who have suffered simple injuries. But the persons who have suffered grievous injury in the very same incident are Sheetamma, Kamalamma, H.M.Basavaraja and Siddavirappa, who have supported the case of the prosecution in toto. 24. P.W.8 – Ajjappa has partly supported the case of the prosecution and he was sitting next to the driver. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6567 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2018 He has stated that while avoiding the ditch, accident has occurred on account of loss of control over the vehicle. However, he did not support the case of the prosecution in toto and therefore, to the extent, he supported the case of the prosecution is taken into consideration by the learned Trial Magistrate along with the testimony of P.W.7, P.W.5, 9, 12 and 19 and rightly convicted the accused. It is also noticed that, no explanation is forthcoming from the accused as to the nature of the accident. 25. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that merely few of the inmates having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, would not ipso fato render the case of the prosecution as doubtful resulting in interference by this Court, that too in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in negative. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6567 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2018 REG.POINT No.2: 26. Admittedly, Basappa S/o. Kariyappa has lost his life and few of the persons have suffered grievous injuries. Taking note of the fact that only six months imprisonment has been granted by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court and State did not chose to file any revision seeking enhancing the punishment, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out by the revision petitioner to reduce the imprisonment period. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in negative. REG.POINT No.3: 27. In view of the findings on point Nos.1 and 2 as above, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6567 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2018 ii. Time is granted for the revision petitioner till 15.05.2025 to surrender before the Trial Court for serving remaining part of the sentence. iii. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA,KAV CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 23