- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4425 CRL.RP No. 100298 of 2017 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.100298 OF 2017 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA HALLALLI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. CHIKKAHARALAHALLI, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.H. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RANEBENNUR RURAL POLICE, R/BY. THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BENCH, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 (1) READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN CRL.APPEAL NO.22 OF 2014 DATED 30.08.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI SITTING AT RANEBENNUR AND ALSO TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE PRL. SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, RANEBENNUR IN C.C.NO.189 OF 2009 DATED 11.04.2014 BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM BY SETTING THEM AT LIBERTY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.11 14:27:39 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4425 CRL.RP No. 100298 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.M.H.Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.189/2009 which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.22/2014 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 4. A complaint came to be lodged by Rural Police Station, Ranebennur contending that on 27.04.2009 at about 2.00 PM, in Kudrihal village road proceeding from Heeladahalli towards Kudrihal, revision petitioner being the driver of a Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No.KA-27/T-8708-8357 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and having lost control over the said - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4425 CRL.RP No. 100298 of 2017 vehicle. As such there was an accident, wherein vehicle got turtled down resulting in death of Fakirawwa Mevundi, Ratnawwa Dandinavar and Fakiresh Nanapur, who are inmates of Trailer and few other inmates have suffered grievous injuries and on based on the said complaint, Ranebennur Ruler Police registered the case and thoroughly investigated and filed charge sheet against the accused. 5. Admittedly, accused did not possess the driving license to drive the Tractor. 6. After due trial, accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) and sentence as under: “Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 is hereby held guilty for the offences punishable under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC and is accordingly convicted for the said offences. The accused is hereby sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of one year and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4425 CRL.RP No. 100298 of 2017 the offence punishable U/S 304-A of IPC and in default he shall further undergo S.I for two months. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.700/-, I/D to undergo S.I for two months for the offence U/S 279 of IPC. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, I/D to undergo S.I for one month for the offence U/S 337 of IPC. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.700/-, I/D to undergo S.I for six months for the offence U/S 338 of IPC. The accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.400/-, I/D he shall undergo a S.I for a period of fifteen days for the offence U/S 3(1) r/w Sec. 181 of M.V Act. However, the accused acquitted U/S 255(1) of Cr.P.C for the offence U/S 134(a) & (b) r/w Sec. 187 of M.V Act. His bail bond and surety bond hereby stand canceled. The above sentences shall run concurrently.” 7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court. Learned District judge after hearing the parties in detail and after securing the records by judgment dated 30.08.2017 dismissed the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4425 CRL.RP No. 100298 of 2017 appeal of the accused confirming the conviction and sentence. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this court in this revision petition. 9. Sri M.H.Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that incident had occurred at the spur of the moment and the inmates of the Trailer had not taken necessary precautions to properly sit in the Trailer. Therefore, negligence cannot be attributed to be accused and sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. Alternatively, Sri.M.H.Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, enhancing the fine amount sentence may be set aside. 11. Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State supports the impugned judgment. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4425 CRL.RP No. 100298 of 2017 12. She would further contend that admittedly, accused did not possess the driving license to drive Tractor and Trailer unit and material evidence placed on record, especially the oral testimony of the injured witnesses would make it clear that the incident is occurred solely on the negligent driving of the accused and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petitioner. 13. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State would contend that three valuable lives have been lost in the incident and few other persons were injured in the incident. Therefore, revision petition needs to be dismissed in toto. 14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the conviction of the revision petitioner is based on sound and logical reasons, especially placing - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4425 CRL.RP No. 100298 of 2017 reliance on the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 16. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that the oral testimony of the injured eyewitnesses must be kept on higher pedestal. Further, no explanation is offered by the accused while recording the accused statement to place the version of the accused with regard to the incident. Therefore, the trial judge had no alternative but to convict the accused. 17. Having regard to the limited scope of the revisional jurisdiction, this court is of the considered opinion that materials on record do not warrant interference with the order of conviction of the accused for the aforesaid offences. 18. This would take this Court to the next limb of the argument advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner namely modification of the sentence. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4425 CRL.RP No. 100298 of 2017 19. As is rightly contended on behalf of the State, there are three valuable lives that have been lost few other inmates of trailer also got injured. 20. However, taking note of the fact that the width of the road and admittedly, the inmates who are traveling in the Trailer by sitting inside the Trailer, if the sentences is reduced from one year to 9 months, ends of justice would be met following dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi 1. 21. Accordingly, in view of the forgoing discussion, following order is passed: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A of the IPC and 3(1) read with 1 (2015) 5 SCC 182 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4425 CRL.RP No. 100298 of 2017 section 181 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, the sentence ordered for major offence under Section 304(A) of the IPC is modified by directing the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of nine months instead of one year. (iii) Office to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant. (iv) Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before the trial court for serving remaining part of the sentence till 30.03.2025. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 34