- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5894 CRL.RP No. 100210 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100210 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MOHAMMAD SHAMIR S/O. SHAFI, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. CHIKKAJOGIHALLI VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M. AMAREGOUDA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY. ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI SITTING AT HOSAPETE AND IN CRL.A.NO.5020/2016 DATED 10.09.2018 AND ORDER PASSED IN C.C.NO.171/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, KUDLIGI, DATED 14.01.2016. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.04.04 15:52:39 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5894 CRL.RP No. 100210 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.Amaregouda, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.171/2013 and sentenced as under: “1. Acting U/s. 255(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is held guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of IPC and U/s.183, 187 of IMV Act and Rules U/s.66(1) R/w 192(A) of IMV Act. 2. Accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.279 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, accused shall also undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 3. Accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also directed to pay a fine of Rs 5,00/- for the offence punishable U/s.337 of IPC. In default of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5894 CRL.RP No. 100210 of 2018 payment of fine, accused shall also undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 4. Accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.338 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, accused shall also undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 5. Accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.304(A) of IPC. In default of payment of fine, accused shall also undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 6. Accused is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each for the offences punishable U/s.183, 187 and Rs 1000 for the offence punishable under sections 66(1) R/w 192(A) of IMV. 7. Accused is also directed to pay the compensation U/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C. for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the legal heir of the deceased and in default of compensation amount, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. 8. All the above sentences are run concurrently. 9. The bail bond of the accused stand cancelled. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5894 CRL.RP No. 100210 of 2018 10. If the accused compensation amount, is deposited the said then same shall be disbursed to the legal heir of the deceased. 11. The interim custody of the seized vehicle which is in the custody of petitioner is made absolute, after the appeal period is over.” 3. The validity of the order of conviction and sentence was questioned by the accused by filing criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.5020/2016. 4. Learned District Judge heard the appeal on merits by considered judgment dated 10.09.2018 confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 6. Sri.Amaregouda, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have wrongly convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and wrongly sentenced him ignoring the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5894 CRL.RP No. 100210 of 2018 fact that the complainant has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and other prosecution witnesses also did not support the case of the prosecution in proper manner and sought for allowing of the revision petition. 7. Alternatively, Sri.Amaregouda, would contend that it is the improper sitting of the cleaner of the vehicle resulting in the accident and therefore, in the event of upholding the conviction, sentence may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount. 8. Per contra, Sri. Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State supports the impugned order. 9. He would further contend that mere complainant turning hostile to the case of the prosecution would not ipso-facto render the case of the prosecution as a false case. 10. He would further contend that prosecution examined other injured witnesses who are the inmates of vehicle in question and they have all supported the case of the prosecution. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5894 CRL.RP No. 100210 of 2018 11. Therefore, merely on the ground that the complainant turning hostile to the case of the prosecution, order of conviction cannot be set aside which has been rightly re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 12. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: i. Whether revision petitioner would make out the case that the impugned judgment are suffering from legal infirmities, perversity and patent factual error and sought for interference? ii. Whether the sentence needs modification? iii. What order? REGARDING POINT NO.1: 13. In the case on hand, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution proceeded to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5894 CRL.RP No. 100210 of 2018 examine 28 witnesses. PW.1 is the complainant, who did not support the case of the prosecution. However, PWs-2, 4 to 9, 13 to 16 and 19 to 26 are the passengers in the TATA ACE-vehicle bearing registration No.KA-16/B-2595. All these witnesses are also injured witnesses. They have all deposed that because of the rash driving of the said vehicle by the accused, vehicle got turtled and inmates suffered injuries and cleaner of the said vehicle having sustained grievous injuries and ultimately died. 14. In the cross examination, the defence which was taken is that there was a road hump and road consisted of several potholes. To avoid the said potholes, accused had to steer vehicle little, which resulted in loss of the balance to the vehicle, and vehicle got turtled. Spot sketch and photographs produced by the prosecution amply establishes that the vehicle got turtled and persons who sat on the left side of the vehicle have sustained grievous injuries and some of them have sustained minor injuries. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5894 CRL.RP No. 100210 of 2018 15. Cleaner having sustained grievous injuries died in the accident. It is pertinent to note that without even taking any steps to shift the injured persons, accused ran away from spot. 16. In the photographs no road humps and potholes are seen. Therefore, when the accused has taken a defence that it was beyond the human control and was unable to establish the same either explaining the incriminatory circumstances at the time of recording the accused statement nor placing his version about the incident on record, following the victim of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan1, this Court that too in the revisional jurisdiction is unable to accept the arguments addressed on behalf of the revision petitioner that accident did not occur on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle (revision petitioner). 1 (2012) 9 SCC 284 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5894 CRL.RP No. 100210 of 2018 17. On the contrary overwhelming evidence is placed on record to sustain the order of conviction. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative. REGARDING POINT NO.2: 18. Learned trial Judge in his discretion has granted six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(A) of the IPC in the absence of any mitigating circumstances especially taking note of the fact that accused did not take any steps to shift the injured persons and allowing so many number of passengers beyond the capacity TATA ACE vehicle that too a goods vehicle, this Court is of the considered opinion that sentence order by trial Magistrate confirmed by the first Appellate Court needs no interference in view of the principles of enunciated in the case of the State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi2. Accordingly, point No.2 is also answered in negative. 2 (2015) 5 SCC 182 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5894 CRL.RP No. 100210 of 2018 REGARDING POINT NO.3: 19. In view of the findings of this Court on points No.1 and 2 as above, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. (ii) Time is granted for the accused to surrender before the trial Court till 30.04.2025. (iii) 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.: 36