- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419 CRL.RP No. 100160 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100160 OF 2017 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: BASAVARAJ S/O. SAHADEVAPPA KAMANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. LORRY DRIVER, R/O. BAMMASAMUDRA, HUBBALLI, TALUK: HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD, THROUGH SHIGGAON P.S., DIST. HAVERI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT HAVERI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2011 DATED 27.10.2016 IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSES BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SHIGGAON IN C.C. NO. 38 OF 2008 DATED 02.05.2011 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 338 AND 304(A) OF IPC AND ALSO UNDER SECTION 134 (a) AND (b) READ WITH 187 OF M.V. ACT. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.14 15:18:11 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419 CRL.RP No. 100160 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Praveen kumar G. counsel for Sri.Anand R. Kolli, counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned HCGP for respondent State. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.38/2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Shiggaon for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of IPC R/W Section 134(a) and (b) R/W 187 of the Indian Motor vehicles Act which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.23/2011 has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the appeal are as under: 3.1 Complaint came to be lodged with Shiggon Police contending that on 22.03.2007 at about 1.15 p.m., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419 CRL.RP No. 100160 of 2017 revision petitioner being the driver of the canter lorry bearing No.KA-25/B-6864 was proceeding from Hubballi to Haveri and near Kamanahalli village, when he drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner, he dashed against the three wheeler (goods vehicle) bearing No.KA- 27/9102 on the hind side whereby the inmates of the said goods vehicle suffered simple and grievous injuries and one among them viz., Nagappa Jadhav succumbed to the injuries while taking to the hospital. Another injured by name Jotheppa Yallappa Kondai succumbed to the injuries despite best treatment on 05.04.2007 at KIMS Hospital, Hubballi. Accused after the incident, left the injured persons unattended escaped away from the place, not even intimating the incident to the Police. 4. Based on the complaint, police registered the case under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304 A r/w Sec.134 and 134 and 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act and after detailed investigation filed charge sheet against the accused. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419 CRL.RP No. 100160 of 2017 5. Learned trial Magistrate after taking cognizance, secured the presence of the accused and recorded the plea of the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined 16 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.16 and placed on record 25 documents which are exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to P25. 7. After conclusion of recording of evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein accused persons have denied all the incriminating materials but failed to place on record, any written submissions about the incident as is contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C. nor placed any defense evidence on record. 8. Thereafter, learned trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and by considered judgment dated 02.05.2011 convicted the accused for the aforesaid - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419 CRL.RP No. 100160 of 2017 offences and for the offence under Section 279 of IPC, 3 months imprisonment was granted and fine of Rs.900 with default sentence and for the offence under Section 337 of IPC, Rs.400/- fine and one month simple imprisonment with default sentence and for the offence under Section 338 of IPC, trial judge imposed three months imprisonment and Rs.900/- fine and for the offence under Section 304A IPC one year simple imprisonment was ordered. For offence under the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, trial judge only imposed the fine amount. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.23/2011. 10. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records heard the parties in detail and re- appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed on record in a cumulative manner dismissed the appeal by considered judgment dated 27.10.2016. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419 CRL.RP No. 100160 of 2017 11. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 12. Sri.Praveen kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that the learned trial judge has not properly appreciated the material evidence placed on record and wrongly convicted the accused which has been mechanically confirmed by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the petition. 13. He would further contend that the driver of the three wheeler has specifically admitted in his oral evidence that six quintals of vegetable were loaded in the three wheeler apart from nine passengers found in the said vehicle and the permissible capacity is only driver and one labour with goods. Therefore, there was a contributory negligence on the part of the three wheeler and police have not properly investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of the canter resulting in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419 CRL.RP No. 100160 of 2017 miscarriage of justice and therefore sought for allowing the revision petition. 14. He would also contend that the width of the road was not sufficient enough to avoid the accident and therefore there was no negligence on the part of the accused but it was beyond human control and sought for considering the said aspect in this revision petition and set aside the order of conviction. 15. Alternatively, Sri.Praveen Kumar would contend that in the event, this Court upholding the order of conviction, by enhancing the fine amount sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A of IPC and other offences needs to be set aside. 16. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader supported the impugned orders. He would further contend that admittedly charge sheet came to be filed against the driver of the canter vehicle and in the absence of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419 CRL.RP No. 100160 of 2017 challenge to the charge sheet, the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner for the first time before this Court regarding contributory negligence cannot be countenanced in law. 17. He further submitted that the material placed on record goes to show that the width of the road was sufficiently wide and admittedly, with the six quintals of vegetable three wheeler was moving in the slow pace. Merely, on the fact that the nine persons were traveling in the auto rickshaw would not be ipso facto make out the case that the driver of the three wheeler is responsible for the accident. 18. Further, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that material evidence had been rightly appreciated by the learned trial judge while passing the order of conviction for the offence under Section 304A IPC, as two death have taken place, while maintaining the conviction no mercy or leniency can be shown to the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419 CRL.RP No. 100160 of 2017 accused and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 19. Having heard the arguments of both sides, the following points would arise for consideration. 1) Whether revision petitioner makes out a case that the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus call for interference? 2) Whether sentence needs modification? 3) What order? 20. In the case on hand, accident that took place on 22.03.2007 near Kamanahalli at about 1.15 p.m involving canter lorry bearing No.KA-25/B-6864 and three wheeler bearing No.KA 27/9102 is established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. Due to the impact of the accident Nagappa Jadhav last his life enroute the hospital and another injured namely Joteppa Yallappa Kondai succumbed to the injuries on 05.04.2007 at KIMS Hospital. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419 CRL.RP No. 100160 of 2017 21. Accused being driver of the canter lorry bearing No. KA-25/B-6864 as on the date of accident is not in dispute. Admittedly, after the accident, he did not take any steps to shift the injured to the hospital nor intimated the incident to the Police. Instead he escaped away from the spot. The other convectors of the same road have taken steps to shift the injured to the hospital. 22. Eye witnesses who are also injured have supported the case of the prosecution in toto. 23. Further, Police after thorough investigation noted that width of the road was sufficiently wide and accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the canter lorry by the accused and filed charge sheet. As is rightly contend on behalf of the prosecution, charge sheet was not challenged nor any contributory negligence was noticed by the investigating agency during the investigation. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419 CRL.RP No. 100160 of 2017 24. Further, mere transporting six quintals of vegetables along with nine persons would not ipso facto result as contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the three wheeler. Pertinently, no explanation whatsoever is furnished on behalf of the accused with regard to the incident. 25. In a matter of this nature, the accused is bound to place his version about the incident atleast at the time of recording the accused statement. If he deliberately fails to do so, consequences in law has follow as is held in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab1. 26. On reconsideration of the material evidence on record in the light of the above judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction of the accused for the aforesaid offences needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative. 1 AIR 1960 SCC 866 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419 CRL.RP No. 100160 of 2017 Regarding Point No.2. 27. In the case on hand, two valuable lives have been lost and few others have been injured. Taking note of the same, learned trial judge has granted only one year imprisonment for the highest offence under Section 304A IPC which requires no interference by this Court. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the negative. Regarding point No.3. 28. In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 as above, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. (ii) Time is granted to the revision petitioner to surrender before the Court for serving remaining part of the sentence by 30.03.2025. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419 CRL.RP No. 100160 of 2017 (iii) Office is directed to return the trial court records with copy of this order. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 25