- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5085 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100265 OF 2017 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI RASUL S/O. MOHAMMADSAB @ MUNNASAB JAMADAR, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, RESIDING AT NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE, DIST. BAGALKOTE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.S. NIRANJAN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BRANCH, AT DHARWAD. ON BEHALF OF TRAFFIC P.S., BAGALKOTE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C 1973., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BAGALKOTE, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 58 OF 2013 DATED 30.03.2017 AND THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOTE IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1078 OF 2011 DATED 20.04.2013 ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME THE COURT BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURTS BELOW AND PETITIONER BE ACQUITTED FOR THE SAID OFFENCES. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.29 11:59:09 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5085 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri S.S. Niranjan, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 2. Accused, who suffered an order of conviction being driver of a three wheeler bearing No.KA-29/A-1753 which met with a road traffic accident on 14.07.2011 at about 9:00 a.m. whereunder the inmates of the said three wheeler got injured and one among them viz., Neelavva died. 3. Upon the complaint lodged by one of the injured, police investigated the matter with regard to the road traffic accident and filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that it is because of the rash and negligent driving of the accused, the incident has occurred. Accused denied the charges and therefore, trial was held. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5085 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2017 4. Learned Trial Magistrate recorded the evidence of 11 prosecution witnesses as PW-1 to PW-11 and appreciated 11 documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-11. 5. One Yellappa Ramappa Alur was examined as DW-1 on behalf of the accused to establish that it is not negligence of the revision petitioner which resulted in the accident. On cumulative consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record especially oral world testimony of injured witnesses, learned Trial Judge convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as under: “Acting U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. I hereby convict an accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and U/Sec. 146 R/W 196 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act in the following terms: (a) For the offence punishable U/Sec.279 of Indian Penal Code, an accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months and he shall liable to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (One thousand only) and in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5085 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2017 default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. (b) For the offence punishable U/Sec.337 of Indian Penal Code, an accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months and he shall liable to pay fine of Rs.500/-(Five Hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. (c) For the offence punishable U/Sec. 338 of Indian Penal Code, an accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months and he shall liable to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (One thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days. (d) For the offence punishable U/Sec.304(A) of Indian Penal Code, an accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for nine months and he shall liable to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-(Five Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. (e) For the offence punishable U/Sec. 146 R/w 196 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act, an accused - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5085 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2017 shall undergo simple imprisonment for forty five days and he shall liable to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-(One thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. As per provision of Sec. 357(c) of Cr.P.C. an accused is liable to pay compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-to the family of deceased Neelavva W/o Malakajappa Bairamatti Rs. 10,000/- to each injured. All sentences shall run concurrently. Office to furnish certified copy of judgment to an accused at free of cost.” 6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.58/2013. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by a considered judgment dated 30.03.2017, dismissed the appeal of the accused. Thereafter, accused is before this Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5085 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2017 8. Sri S.S. Niranjan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not taken note of the answers solicited in the cross-examination of PW-4 to PW-7 while recording an order of conviction against the accused and thus the impugned judgments have resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Sri Niranjan would also contend that material evidence on record is not properly appreciated and learned Trial Judge has picked up few admissions here and there in a chosen manner ignoring the material evidence on record which are very much germane to the issue involved in the accident and wrongly recorded an order of conviction which has been mechanically approved by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court and thus sought for allowing revision petition. 10. Alternatively Sri Niranjan would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5085 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2017 imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Judge needs to be modified by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 11. Per contra, Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent supports the impugned judgments. 12. He would further contend that accused being the driver of the three wheeler auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-29/A-1753 as on the date of incident is not in dispute. Admittedly, it is a goods vehicle and in such goods vehicle why the accused was carrying on the passengers is an aspect that has to be looked into while appreciating case of the prosecution. Further, the injured eyewitnesses have supported the case of the prosecution by deposing with graphic details as to what transpired at the time of incident. 13. He would further point out that accused had taken a false defence that his vehicle was not at all involved in the incident and there is a false implication of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5085 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2017 the vehicle. However, the IMV report and other details would go to show that it is the vehicle involved in the incident is driven by the accused as on date of incident and therefore, the revision petition has no merits and needs to be dismissed. 14. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, Sri Praveen would contend that in the case on hand, three of the inmates of the vehicle were injured and one Neelavva lost her life due to the impact of the accidental injuries. Therefore, no mercy or lenience can be shown to the accused and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 15. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 16. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: 1) Whether the accused-revision petitioner makes out a case that the impugned judgments are suffering from - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5085 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2017 legal infirmity and perversity and patent factual error thus calls for interference? 2) Whether the sentence needs modification? 3) What order? Regarding point No.1: 17. In the case on hand, road traffic accident occurred on 14.07.2011 involving three wheeler auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-29/A-1753 which was driven by accused-petitioner is not in dispute. Though suggestions were made to the scribe of the complainant that the vehicle number and other contents of the complaint are in two different ink, the same is denied by the scribe. 18. This Court perused the complaint averments with the limited revisional jurisdiction only to appreciate the said aspect of the matter. On such comparison, this Court is unable to accept that the vehicle number and the contents of the complaint are written in two different ink. 19. What is to be noted is that the vehicle number is predominantly written with ‘capital letters’ and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5085 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2017 therefore, it appears that it is written in different ink. The suggestions in this regard reaches a far reaching effect inasmuch as accused wanted to impress upon the Trial Court that his vehicle was not only involved in the incident. 20. However, the IMV report and arrest of the accused on the date of incident would make it clear that it is the same vehicle which was driven by the accused which was involved in the incident. 21. Further, at the time of recording the accused statement, accused went to the extent of disputing the very accident itself. When three persons are injured and one of the inmates died in the road traffic accident, accused going to the extent of denying the accident itself is a significant factor that has been taken note by this Court. 22. Further, post-mortem report of Neelavva would make it sufficiently clear that because of the injuries - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5085 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2017 sustained by her in the road traffic accident, she lost her life. 23. Injured and eye witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution with graphic details. The contradictions that are elicited in their cross-examination are to be termed as minor contradictions and therefore, it is natural. 24. These aspects of the matter have been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge while recording an order of conviction and same is rightly reappreciated by the learned Trial Judge in the First Appellate Court. 25. Having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court reconsidered the material on record in the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner. On such reconsideration of the material on record, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity or patent factual error so as to interfere with the order of conviction. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5085 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2017 26. In the case on hand, three persons are injured and one of them has also suffered grievous injuries as could be seen from the wound certificate. Yet another inmate namely Neelavva has succumbed to the injuries. 27. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Judge imposed simple imprisonment for a period of nine months as against maximum punishment of two years taking note of alleged mitigating circumstance placed on record on behalf of the accused. Thus, there is hardly any scope for this Court to reduce the punishment further. 28. Following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi1, this Court is of the considered opinion that sentence ordered by the learned Trial Judge confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in negative. 1 (2012) 5 SCC 182 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5085 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2017 REG. POINT No.3: 29. In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 as above, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. ii. Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court to serve remaining part of the sentence till 15.04.2025. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA para 1 to 15 KAV para 16 to end CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 32