- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6938 CRL.RP No. 100084 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.100084 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: NINGAPPA S/O. MAHADEV MUDHOL, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. BENDAWAD, TQ. RAIBAG, NOW AT KSRTC DEPOT, RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.P. VIVEK MEHTA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HAVERI TOWN POLICE STATION, R/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 A) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE I-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, IN CRL.A.NO.31/2017 DATED 23.11.2018 BE SET ASIDE AND B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, IN C.C.NO.26/2014, DATED 03.07.2017 BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AND CONVICTED HIM. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6938 CRL.RP No. 100084 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.N.P.Vivekmehta, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Accused is the revision petitioner, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.26/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) which got confirmed in Crl.A.No.31/2017 and sentenced as under: “Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. accused person is convicted of the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304 (A) of IPC. The accused person is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and also ordered to penalty of ₹1,000/-. Further accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6938 CRL.RP No. 100084 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and also ordered to penalty of 1,000/-. If accused failed to pay penalty he shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of 3 months. The sentence imposed to the accused person shall run concurrently.” 3. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: Revision petitioner was a driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-42/F-430. On 19.09.2013 at about 9:30 P.M., within the limits of Haveri Town Police Station on P.B. road near Chanakya Bar, accused drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner from Hubli towards Haveri side and dashed against the flock of sheep which were proceeding on the side of the road. Due to which, 45 sheeps died on the spot and shepherds by named Suresh and Basappa were to injuries on the spot. 4. A complaint came to be lodged in this regard which was registered in Crime No.172/2013 and matter - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6938 CRL.RP No. 100084 of 2019 was thoroughly investigated and charge sheet came to be filed. 5. After due trial, accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the IPC and sentenced as referred to supra. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.31/2017. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material evidence on record, allowed the appeal in part by modifying the sentence from three years to two years for the offence punishable under Section 304(A). 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 9. Sri.N.P.Vivekmehta, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material on record in right perspective and wrongly convicted the accused - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6938 CRL.RP No. 100084 of 2019 resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. Alternatively, Sri.N.P.Vivekmehta, would contend that in the event this Court up holding the order of conviction, the sentence ordered by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the IPC may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and portion of which can be paid as compensation to the dependents of the deceased and sought for allowing the revision petition to that extent. 11. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, leaned High Court Pleader for respondent-State supports the impugned judgments. 12. He would further contend that even though the incident has occurred at 9:15 PM, since at the incident has occurred on a highway and the offending bus in question had bright headlights. Therefore, revision petitioner could have spotted the flock of sheep which was being managed by the deceased by the shepherds, who are deceased in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6938 CRL.RP No. 100084 of 2019 the incident and non taking necessary precaution expecting the unexpected moments on the road has resulted in the accident. 13. Therefore, incident has occurred only on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the revision petitioner which has been rightly appreciated by both the Courts while convicting the accused for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the IPC and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 14. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, would submit that learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has rightly exercised discretion in reducing the imprisonment from three years to two years. Therefore, there is no scope for further reduction of the sentence in the case on hand and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 16. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6938 CRL.RP No. 100084 of 2019 i. Whether revision petitioner makes out the case that the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity, or factual error, so as to seek interference from this Court? ii. Whether the sentence needs modification? iii. What order? REGARDING POINT NO.1: 17. In the case on hand, road traffic accident occurred on Pune-Bengalore highway on 19.09.2013 at about 9:15 P.M., Chanakya bar near Haveri is established by placing necessary evidence on record. Further, accused being the driver of the said offending bus is not in dispute. 18. The material on record would not make out a case for interference, that too, in the revisional jurisdiction insofar as the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by the revision petitioner. 19. Further, there is no defence evidence placed on record nor accused has stepped into the witness box to explain what exactly happened at the time of accident. 20. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the trial Magistrate and the learned Judge in the First - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6938 CRL.RP No. 100084 of 2019 Appellate Court were justified in recording an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the IPC. 21. Absence of any explanation offered by the accused is a significant factor in a matter of this nature. View of this Court in this regard is fortified by the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan1. In view of the forgoing discussions, point No.1 is answered in the negative. 22. Insofar as the appropriate sentence for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the IPC is concerned, admittedly, the incident has occurred on the highway at about 9:15 PM. 23. The trial judge had granted three years imprisonment for loss of two human lives and 45 sheeps. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court re-appreciated 1 (2012) 9 SCC 284 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6938 CRL.RP No. 100084 of 2019 the same and reduced the imprisonment for a period of two years from three years. 24. However, since the incident has occurred on highway and that too in the night hours, the loss of human lives and 45 sheeps being taken into consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from two years to one year for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the IPC, ends of justice would be met following dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi2. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. REGARDING POINT NO.3: 25. In view of the findings of this Court on points No.1 and 2 as above, the following order is passed. 2 (2015) 5 SCC 182 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6938 CRL.RP No. 100084 of 2019 ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, sentence of imprisonment order by the trial Magistrate and modified by the First Appellate Court is further modified by directing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the IPC. (iii) Rest of the sentences stands unaltered. (iv) Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before the trial Court for serving remaining part of the sentence till 31.05.2025. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6938 CRL.RP No. 100084 of 2019 (v) Office to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19