- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5826 CRL.RP No. 200101 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200101 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SANTOSH S/O NINGANNA MANGALORE, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. INGALAGI, TQ. SINDAGI , DIST. VIJAYAPURA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHADEV S. PATIL AND SRI A.D. RATHOD, ADVOCATES) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH BASAVAN BAGEWADI POLICE STATION, REPT. BY HIGH COURT, ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KALABURAGI BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 01.07.2023 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.90/2022, WHEREIN CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5826 CRL.RP No. 200101 of 2023 DATED 30.11.2022 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1259/2019 BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. Court, BASAVAN BAGEWADI FOR SENTENCING SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR PERIOD OF 21 MONTHS AND ALSO PAY FINE OF Rs.5,500/- FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279, 337, 338 AND 304A OF IPC AND SECTION 192 OF IMV ACT BY ALLOWING THE REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G. UMA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA) 1. The accused in C.C. No.1259/2019 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Basavana Bagewadi, (herein after referred to as Trial Court) is impugning the judgment dated 30.11.2022 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code [for short ‘IPC’] and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act [for short ‘M.V. Act’], which was confirmed in Crl.A. No.90/2022 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, (herein - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5826 CRL.RP No. 200101 of 2023 after referred to as First Appellate Court) by dismissing the appeal. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, the informant being the eyewitness, filed the first information as per Ex.P8 against the accused, alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act. The FIR came to be registered and investigation was undertaken. After investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and Section 192 of M.V. Act. 3. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered C.C. No.1259/2019. The accused appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P19 in support of its contention. Accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but has not led any evidence in his defence. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5826 CRL.RP No. 200101 of 2023 4. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that, the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred Crl.A. No.90/2022. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the materials available on record, dismissed the appeal by confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court. 6. Heard Sri Mahadev S. Patil and Sri A.D. Rathod, learned counsels for the revision petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned counsel for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record, including the Trial Court records. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5826 CRL.RP No. 200101 of 2023 7. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsels for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the revision petitioner has made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court?" My answer to the above point is 'partly in the Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 8. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused being the Driver of Mahindra Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-28/C-8119 has driven the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, it toppled. Two inmates of the vehicle have died and four others sustained injuries. Therefore, it is contended that the accused has committed the offence as stated above. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5826 CRL.RP No. 200101 of 2023 To prove its contention, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 being the eyewitnesses to the incident. In fact, PWs.3 and 4 have not supported the case of the prosecution. PWs.1 and 2 being the eyewitnesses have supported the case of the prosecution by stating that the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle, which was loaded with cotton; several persons were sitting on the load and the vehicle toppled, as a result of which, two persons died and the others have sustained injuries. It is pertinent to note that during cross-examination, the accused has a taken a defence that since there was overload of cotton, the incident has occurred. It is not in dispute that the accused was the driver of the said vehicle, where the cotton was loaded in a dangerous manner and further many persons were allowed to sit on the said load of cotton. Admittedly, the vehicle driven by the accused was toppled by the side of the road. Accused has not taken any other specific defence assigning reasons for toppling of the vehicle, except stating that overload of the cotton is the root cause - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5826 CRL.RP No. 200101 of 2023 for toppling. Since, the accused himself has driven such overloaded vehicle, by permitting persons to sit on it definitely he was rash and negligent in driving such vehicle. It is suggested by the learned counsel for the accused that since the cotton load loaded in the vehicle was leaning towards one side, the vehicle toppled. All these suggestions attribute the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver in driving the vehicle in such a dangerous condition, which resulted in death of two persons and injuries to the many inmates. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. Obviously, there was violation of the permit condition and thereby the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 192 of M.V. Act. 9. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Both the Courts have - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5826 CRL.RP No. 200101 of 2023 arrived at right a conclusion that the accused is liable for conviction for these offences. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leniency while sentencing the accused for the offence under Section 304A of IPC. 11. The Trial Court has sentenced the accused both for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. The offence under Section 279 of IPC is being minor offence merges with the major offence under Section 304A of IPC. I may refer to the decision in Guru Basavaraj Alias Benne Settappa vs. State of Karnataka1, in this regard. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the order of sentence passed in respect of the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC is liable to be set aside. 1 (2012) 8 SCC 734 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5826 CRL.RP No. 200101 of 2023 12. For the offence under Section 304A of IPC, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default sentence. Considering the fact that the overloading of the cotton in the vehicle resulted in the accident, I am of the opinion that some leniency may be shown in favour of the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, I answer the above point ‘partly in the affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following. ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment dated 30.11.2022 passed in C.C. No.1259/2019 on the file of the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Basavana Bagewadi convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC is confirmed. (ii) The order of sentence for the offence under Section 279 of IPC is set aside. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5826 CRL.RP No. 200101 of 2023 (iv) Fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused, for the offence under Section 279 of IPC is ordered to be refunded to the accused on due identification. (v) The order of sentence for the offense punishable under Section 304A of IPC is modified as under: a) The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay fine of RS.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, in default to pay fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Registry to send back the TCR along with copy of this order for information and for needful action. Sd/- (M.G. UMA) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 CT:PK