- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6899 CRL.RP No. 100252 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100252 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: LAXMAN S/O. LAXXMAVVA MADAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. BILAGI, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOTE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH P.S.I. BILAGI, BILAGI POLICE STATION, REPT BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT, DHARWAD. …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 SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE II-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE, IN CRL.A.NO.56/2012 DATED 28.06.2019 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, BILAGI, IN C.C.NO.65/2011 DATED 18.04.2012 FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 279 AND 304-A OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6899 CRL.RP No. 100252 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri. Prakash .N. Hosamane, 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.65/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304 and Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced as under: “THE accused is found guilty of the offences punishable U/Secs. 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code. THE accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec. 3 R/W 181 of M.V.Act. IN exercise of the powers conferred U/Sec. 255(I) of Cr.P.C the accused is hereby - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6899 CRL.RP No. 100252 of 2019 acquitted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 3 R/W 181 of M.V.Act. IN exercise of powers conferred U/Sec. 255 (II) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 279 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default shall under go Simple Imprisonment for 10 days. FURTHER, the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 years. THE bail bond of the accused and of surety shall stands cancelled.” 3. Validity of the order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in Crl.A.No.56/2012 filed by the accused. 4. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: In respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on 12.09.2010, a complaint came to be lodged by Hasanasab Kashimsab Dayammanavar with Bilagi Police station, alleging that on 12.09.2010 at about 9:30 a.m., near Gaibusab Mosque at Yadahalli-Galagali road, accused - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6899 CRL.RP No. 100252 of 2019 being the driver of the Jeep bearing registration No.KA-29/A-984 drove the same in rash and negligent manner without any valid licence, dashed against a pedestrian by name Dadapeer S/o Davalsab Dayammanavar. The said pedestrian fell down and sustained grievous injuries and on account of the impact of the injuries, he died on the spot. 5. Police registered the case in Crime No.205/2010 and investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. 6. After due trial, noting the fact that there are eyewitnesses who supported the case of the prosecution and accused did not hold any valid driving licence nor place any material evidence on record, learned trial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.56/2012. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6899 CRL.RP No. 100252 of 2019 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal on merits. 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 10. Sri.Prakash.N.Hosamane, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. Alternatively, Sri.Prakash.N.Hosamane, would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction for the aforesaid offences, this Court may take into consideration that accused is young age and have got a family to maintain, may set aside the imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 12. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6899 CRL.RP No. 100252 of 2019 State supports the impugned judgments and prays for dismissal of the revision petition. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: i. Whether revision petitioner makes out the case that the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity, or factual error, so as to seek interference from this Court? ii. Whether the sentence needs modification? iii. What order? REGARDING POINT NO.1: 15. In the case on hand, accused being the driver of the Jeep bearing registration No.KA-29/A-984 is not in dispute. 16. Admittedly, complainant and PW.1, PW.4 to PW.8 are the eyewitnesses to the accident, who identified - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6899 CRL.RP No. 100252 of 2019 the accused and in fact, apprehended the accused. They have all supported the case of the prosecution in toto. 17. The detailed cross examination of prosecution witnesses did not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve their version. 18. Further, P.W.1, PW.4 to PW.8 being the strangers to the accused, did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity as against the accused to depose falsely against him. 19. Fact of death of Dadapeer S/o Davalsab Dayammanavar is established by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record. Post mortem report and the inquest mahazar would substantiate and corroborate the testimony of the complainant and eyewitnesses. 20. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the learned trial Judge raised necessary questions at the time of recording the accused statement and put across the incriminating materials. Accused denied all the incriminating circumstances including the accident. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6899 CRL.RP No. 100252 of 2019 21. Pertinently, accused failed to place on record his version about the incident. As such, conviction order recorded by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference in the light of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan1. 22. In view of the forgoing discussion, Point No.1 is answered in the negative. REGARDING POINT NO.1: 23. In the case on hand, admittedly, accused did not possess the valid driving license to drive the Jeep on the public road. However, taking note of the age of the accused and also attendant facts and circumstances of the case of accident, wherein the pedestrian is found on the road and not on footpath, this Court is of the considered opinion that simple imprisonment ordered by the trial Magistrate for a period of two years confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs to be reduced to six months 1 (2012) 9 SCC 284 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6899 CRL.RP No. 100252 of 2019 following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi2. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. REGARDING POINT NO.3: 24. 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 allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, and 304(A) IPC, and Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Indian Motor vehicle Act, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC is reduced from two years to six months. (iii) Rest of the sentence stands unaltered. 2 (2015) 5 SCC 182 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6899 CRL.RP No. 100252 of 2019 (iv) Time is granted for the accused to surrender before the trial Court on or before 20.05.2025. (v) 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.: 35