- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701 CRL.RP No. 100247 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100247 OF 2017 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: JAGADEESH S/O. GANGAYYA MATAPATHI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. KALLADEVAR, TQ. BYADAGI, DIST. HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SMT.SHEBA KHANAPUR, AMICUS CURIAE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY P.S.I. OF RURAL P.S., RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI, R/BY. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THSI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN C.C.NO. 19 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC RANEBENNUR AND TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 19.06.2017 IN CRL. A NO. 16 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI SITTING AT RANEBENNUR AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMNET AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 19.02.2014 IN C.C.NO. 19 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC, RANEBENNUR CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337 AND 304-A OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 66(1) READ WITH SECTION 192 OF MV ACT, AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 304-A OF IPC. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.21 10:35:20 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701 CRL.RP No. 100247 of 2017 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) Heard Smt.Sheba Khanapur, Amicus Curie for petitioner and Sri. Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Accused to suffer an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304A of IPC R/W section 66(1) r/w Section 192 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced as under, which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.16/2014 is the revision petitioner. ”Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C, accused is hereby held guilty for the offences under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC and U/S 66(1) r/w Sec. 192 of MV Act and is accordingly convicted for the said offences. the accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 700/- for the offence punishable U/S 279 of IPC, I/D he shall undergo a S.I for a period of one month. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701 CRL.RP No. 100247 of 2017 He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 300/- for the offence punishable U/S 337 of IPC, I/D he shall undergo a S.I for a period of one month. He is further sentenced to undergo S.I for six months for the offence punishable U/S 304-A of IPC and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/-, and I/D to pay fine, he shall undergo a S.I for a further period of one month. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and I/D shall undergo a S.I. For 3 months for the offence punishable U/s 66(1) R/w Sec. 192-A of MV Act. The above sentences shall run concurrently. His bail bond and surety bond hereby stand canceled.” 3. Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1 Police Sub-inspector, Rural Police Station, Ranebennur filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC and Section 66(1) R/W Section 192 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701 CRL.RP No. 100247 of 2017 3.2 Based on the complaint, wherein it is alleged that on 29/01/2011 at about 6:45 PM accused being the driver of Mahindra goods vehicle bearing No.KA-27/A-4128 along with Puttavva alias Galemma from Ankasapur towards Udagatti in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied the break in the process of over taking another vehicle. As a result, an inmate of the vehicle namely Puttavva fell down from the vehicle on the road and sustained fatal head injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 3.3 Learned trial Magistrate after taking cognizance recorded the plea of the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty, therefore trial was held. 3.4 In order to establish the case of the prosecution, in all 10 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 10 and 11 documentary evidence were placed on record as Ex.P1 to P11. 3.5 After conclusion of recording of the evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701 CRL.RP No. 100247 of 2017 of Cr.PC was recorded, wherein accused has denied all the incriminating circumstances but failed to place any explanation nor defense evidence on record. 3.6 Subsequent to that learned trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and convicted the accused and sentence as referred supra. Being aggrieved by same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.16/2015. 3.7 Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of sentence. 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 5. Learned Amicus Curie reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701 CRL.RP No. 100247 of 2017 evidence on record, wrongly convicted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. She would further contended that defense raised by the accused in the trial in the form of suggestions to the prosecution witnesses that Puttavva alias Galemma was not died on account of the head injuries is not properly taken into consideration by both the Courts and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. Per contra, learned HCGP Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara supports the impugned orders. 8. Heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration of this Court. 1) Wheather the revision petitioner establishes that the impugned judgments are suffering from legal - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701 CRL.RP No. 100247 of 2017 infirmity and perversity and thus calls for interference ? 2) Whether the sentence need modification? 3) What order? Regarding Point Nos.1 and 2 10. In the case on hand, accused being the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.KA-27/A-4128 and Puttavva being inmate of the vehicle is not in dispute. Accident is also not in dispute and Puttavva falling down from the vehicle and sustaing injuries is also not in dispute. 11. Postmortem report makes it clear that death is on account of the head injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 12. Defence of the accused that Puttavva did not die on account of the head injury is dealt in detail by the learned trial Judge in paragraph No.14 of the judgment which is culled out hereunder for ready reference. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701 CRL.RP No. 100247 of 2017 14. It is also to be noted that the accused has put forth a specific and positive defence that the cause of the death of the deceased was not his rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle but it was due to some other reason. When this has been his specific defence then the same has to be proved by him with cogent rebuttal evidence and if the same could not be proved by him even when an opportunity was accorded while recording his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C then it is to be held that the defence put forth him him is false, i.e., what has been well settled by the Hon'able High Court in an earlier decision reported in Ishwar Sadeppa Nandennavar v/s State of Karnataka represented by its State P.P Bangalore in ILR 2004 Kar. 1459. The Hon'able High Court while dealing with similar case has clearly held as under : IPC Secs. 279,337,338, 304-A-- Rash and negligent driving endangering life and personal safety of others-causing grievous hurt- causing death by negligence applicability of doctrine of Res-Ipsa Loquitor-Held-the prosecution evidence especially that of the complainant driver, the facts and narrated in the complainant are even substantiated through the evidence of other injured passengers of the bus. It is prima facie apparent-the tempo vehicle while came from opposite direction by overtaking another truck and dashed against the bus resulting in death of eleven passengers and serious injuries to 17 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701 CRL.RP No. 100247 of 2017 others. As against this prima facie material absolutely no explanation has been offered by the accused. That the courts have rightly invoked the doctrine of Res-Ipsa Loquitur. The above principles are once again reiterated in a subsequent decision of the Hon'able Supreme Court in Ravi Kapur v/s State of Rajastan in 2012 Crl.L.J 4403 which is relied upon by the learned APP. The principles laid down in both these decisions will have to be extended to the facts on hand for the simple reason that even in the present case, the injuries caused to PW1 and the resultant death of the deceased are proved to be the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused which has been unequivocally spoken to by Pws. 1, 2, 5 to 7 who have witnessed the accident and they are also proved to be the probable and natural witnesses since their presence at the scene of the offence is not specifically denied by the defence side.. Under such circumstances their testimony which regard to the cause of the accident will have to be certainly relied upon since the negligence and rashness are the essential elements U/S 304-A of IPC as has been well settled in a catena of decisions and one such decision is reported in Rathnashalvan v/s State of Karnataka in 2007(2) Crimes 51 (SC) wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and in the instant case the rashness and negligent act of the accused is apparent - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701 CRL.RP No. 100247 of 2017 from the evidence adduced before the court by the prosecution. Therefore, considering all these attending facts and circumstances of the case, it can squarely be held that the accused has committed the offence punishable U/S 279 of IPC which has led to the resultant end of one innocent life and injuries to the other. Hence, all these three points will have to be answered in favour of the prosecution in the affirmative.” 13. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court did take into consideration the grounds of the appeal while upholding the order of conviction. First Appellate Court did consider the testimony of PW7 who is an eye witness to the incident and stranger to the accused who did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity against the accused. Date of accident is on 29/01/2011 and time of accident is 6:45 PM. 14. Therefore, false implication of the accused in the incident is impermissible so also presence of PW7 at the time of accident cannot be ruled out who is a chance witness to the case on record. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701 CRL.RP No. 100247 of 2017 15. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction as is held in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another1, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction order recorded by both Courts is just and proper. More so, in the absence of any version being placed on record by the accused and not placing any defence evidence. 16. Learned trial Judge has granted 6 months imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A of IPC which requires no further interference by this Court in view of the principles of law enunciated in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi. In view of the foregoing discussion, points No. 1 and 2 are answered in the negative Regarding point No.3 17. In view of the finding of this Court on Point Nos.1 and 2 as above, following order is passed: 1 (2012) 9 SCC 460 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4701 CRL.RP No. 100247 of 2017 ORDER (i) Revision Petition is meritless and therefore dismissed. (ii) Time is granted for the accused-revision petitioner to surrender before the trial Court till 15.04.2025. Failing which the trial Court shall secure his presence in accordance with law and send him to prison. (iii) Services rendered by learned Amicus Curie is placed on record with appreciation. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 34