- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4440 CRL.RP No. 100206 of 2018 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.100206 OF 2018 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI MASTAN S/O. MALIKSAB SAYYAD, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. VANNUR, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SMT.SHAILA.BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE POLICE INSPECTOR, HUNGUND POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 401 (1) R/W. SECTION 397(1) OF THE CR.P.C. 1973, SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 16.08.2018 IN CRL.A.NO.44/2015 ON V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.18 15:26:09 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4440 CRL.RP No. 100206 of 2018 THE FILE OF PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE, WHEREIN THE DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 09.04.2015 IN C.C.NO.164/2007 PASSED BY ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HUNGUND AND THEREBY CONVICTED THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES U/S. 338 OF IPC SENTENCING SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS AND TO PAY A FINE AMOUNT OF RS.1000/- & IN DEFAULT TO PAYMENT OF FINE OF UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS AND FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 338 OF IPC AND FURTHER SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS AND TO PAY A FINE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO PAYMENT OF FINE, TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MOTNHS FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304A OF IPC FURTHER IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE BY THE TRIAL COURT FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 184 OF MV ACT TO PAY FINE OF RS.500/- IDSI FOR A PERIOD OF 15 DAYS IS MAINTAINED MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND THE REVISION PETITIONER MAY KINDLY BE ACQUITTED FOR THE ABOVE SAID OFFENCES. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4440 CRL.RP No. 100206 of 2018 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.Shaila Bellikatte, counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y Devareddiyavara learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent –State. 2. Accused suffered an order of conviction for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and sentenced as under, which has been confirmed in Crl.A.No.44/2015 is the revision petitioner: “Acting U/s. 255(2) of Cr.P.C the accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 Months with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable U/S.337 of I.P.C. In default for payment of fine he shall undergo for further simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days. The accused is convicted and sentenced a period of 1 year with a fine of for Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.338 of I.P.C. IDSI for a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4440 CRL.RP No. 100206 of 2018 period of 3 Months. Further, the accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 1 Year with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable U/S. 304 (A) of I.P.C. IDSI for a period of 6 Months. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable U/S. 184 of IMV Act. IDSI for a period of 15 days.” 3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1 On 10.02.2007 at about 11 a.m. near Hiremagi cross on private company road, accused being the driver of truck bearing No.KA-22/A 4532 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner whereby truck got capsized and fell in the deep ditch. As a result, inmates of truck viz., Kallesh and Mushtak succumbed to the injuries. Another inmate Mohammad Raifiq and driver of the truck also sustained injuries. 3.2 Based on the complaint lodged about the incident, Hunagund police registered case and investigated the matter in detail. After thorough investigation, investigation - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4440 CRL.RP No. 100206 of 2018 officer filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A, 337 and 338 of IPC. 3.3 Prosecution also placed on record, fiber part of the indicator, number plate of the lorry and wooden pieces of the body of the lorry were marked as M.Os.1 to 3. 3.4 After taking the cognizance presence of the accused was secured. His plea was recorded and accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, accused was tried. 3.5 In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, 16 witnesses were examined as PW.1 to PW.16 and 16 documents were placed on record as Ex.P1 to P16. 3.6 On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned trial judge recorded the accused statement as is contemplated in Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the incriminating circumstances, failed to offer any explanation nor placed any defense evidence. Thereafter, learned trial judge heard the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of oral and documentary - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4440 CRL.RP No. 100206 of 2018 evidence on record, convicted the accused and sentenced as above supra. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, accused filed an appeal before District Court in Crl.A.No.44/2015. 5. 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 available on record, maintained the conviction order but reduced the period of sentence from one year to six months. 6. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused has filed the present revision petition. 7. Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel for the revision petitioner re-iterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that both the courts erred in law, forgetting the fact that road was a kacha road that too a private company road and having regarding to the slopy area of the road, driver lost control over the vehicle - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4440 CRL.RP No. 100206 of 2018 and fell into ditch which is beyond the human control and there was no negligence established in the case and therefore, conviction order is to be set aside by allowing the revision petition. 8. Alternatively, Smt.Shaila Bellikatti would contend that in the event, this court upholding the order of conviction, sentence of imprisonment may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned orders. 10. He would further contend that admittedly, the accused was the driver of the truck as on the date of incident and since it is a kacha road, it was expected of from the revision petitioner to exercise due care and caution while driving the truck. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4440 CRL.RP No. 100206 of 2018 11. He further contended that just because the road was a kacha road it would not ipso facto make out that road conditions and inherent defects in the vehicle is responsible for the accident as IMV report does not contain any mechanical defects. 12. He further contends that, but for the rash and negligent driving, the incident would not have happened and sought for dismissal of revision petition. He also contended that the alternate submission cannot be countenanced in law as two valuable lives have been lost in the incident. Thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of material on record, the following points would arise for consideration. 1) Whether, the revision petitioner makes out a case that impugned orders are suffering from legal - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4440 CRL.RP No. 100206 of 2018 infirmity, perversity or patent factual defects as to interfere with the impugned orders? 2) Whether sentence needs modification? 3) What order? Point Nos. 1 and 2 14. In the case on hand, accident stood established as revision petitioner also got hurt in the very same accident. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming from the accused at the time of recording accused statement. IMV Report does not indicate any mechanical defect in the lorry. 15. Therefore, the only ground on which the defense of the accused could be taken into consideration that too having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction is the condition of the road. 16. Admittedly, the road is formed by the private company and it is a Kacha road. Under such circumstances, accused is expected to exercise extra - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4440 CRL.RP No. 100206 of 2018 caution as he was very well knew that the road is a kacha road. 17. Taking note of the fact that the lorry fell into deep ditch and inmates of the lorry would be secured under the spot panchanama marked as MOs.1 to 3, the damage that has been caused to the lorry and recovery of the dead bodies and rescuing the injured persons itself shows the gravity of the incident. Under such circumstances, accused is expected to place his version on record. 18. If accused deliberately fails to place his version on record, consequences in law follow as is held in the case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan1. Therefore, order of conviction recorded by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the judge in the First Appellate Court needs no interference. 19. Learned trial Magistrate, in his discretion by taking note of the fact that there were two deaths in the 1 (2012) 9 SCC 284 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4440 CRL.RP No. 100206 of 2018 incident and two more persons who got injured being rescued in the incident has imposed punishment of Simple imprisonment of one year. 20. However, learned judge in the first appellate court, taking note of the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, reduced the imprisonment from one year to six months for the major offence under Section 304A of IPC. 21. 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 no further indulgence can be shown with regard to the reduction of the simple imprisonment. More so, when there is mitigating circumstances pleaded and placed on record. 22. Accordingly, points No.1 and 2 are answered in the negative. 2 (2015) 5 SCC 182 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4440 CRL.RP No. 100206 of 2018 Regarding Point No.3: 23. In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Revision petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. (ii) Accused-revision petitioner is granted time till 05.04.2025 to surrender before the Court for serving the remaining part of the sentence. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 41