- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5086 CRL.RP No. 100305 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.100305 OF 2017 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: VAIJANATH S/O. ADIVEPPA, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. BHEEMA NAGAR, BHALKI, NOW AT KSRTC DEPOT NO.1, HOSUR, HUBBALLI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVASAI M.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY. S.P.P, HIGH HCOURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD, BY P.I. DHARWAD TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND THE SENTENCE ORDER DATED 4.10.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSION JUDGE, DHARWAD IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.52 OF 2017 CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.05.2017 PASSED BY PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.129 OF 2012 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE CHARGES 279, 304(A), OF IPC AND 134(A)(B) R/W. 187 OF MV ACT LEVIED AGAINST HIM. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.03.27 15:30:09 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5086 CRL.RP No. 100305 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Shivasai M. Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.129/2012 dated 06.05.2017 for the offences punishable under Section under Section 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of IMV Act and sentenced as under: Exercising the power under Section 255(2) of Cr. P.C., I hereby convicted the accused of the offences punishable under Sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC. The Accused shall under go simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence under Sec. 304-A of IPC. The Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Sec. 279 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall under go simple imprisonment for 2 months. Exercising the power under Section 255(2) of Cr. P.C. , I hereby convicted the accused of the offences - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5086 CRL.RP No. 100305 of 2017 punishable under Sec. 134(a) R/w Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 134(a) R/w Sec. 187 of M.V.Act. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month. Exercising the power under Section 255(2) of Cr. P.C. , I hereby convicted the accused of the offences punishable under Sec. 134(b) R/w Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 134(b) R/w Sec. 187 of M.V.Act. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month. Bail bonds of the accused as well as surety stand cancelled which were given at the initial stage. However, the bail and surety bond which were furnished on 20-10-2014 shall continue to hold good till the expiry of appeal period. 3. Validity of the order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the District Court in Crl.A.No.57/2017. 4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has reappreciated the material evidence on record and dismissed the appeal of the accused. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5086 CRL.RP No. 100305 of 2017 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision. 6. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 7. A complaint came to be lodged by Kumarswamy Pujar with Dharwad Traffic Police contending that on 27.03.2012 in the evening hours, when he had been to Sujal Water Company and they were returning to Dharwad at P.B. Road. Near Navalur Cross, Raghavendra Karpoor who was his owner was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.K-25/U-8628 towards Dharwad. A KSRTC bus bearing No.K-25/F-2830 came from Dharwad side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle in the process of overtaking a car. 8. Due to the impact of said dashing, Raghavendra Karpoor fell down and sustained fatal injuries. Driver of the bus moved the bus for some distance and thereafter, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5086 CRL.RP No. 100305 of 2017 stopped the bus. However, after seeing number of people gathering on the spot, driver of the bus left the place of accident along with the bus. 9. Thereafter, police were informed about the accident and ambulance was secured to the spot and injured was shifted to the hospital. However, injured lost his life enroute to hospital. 10. Based on such complaint, Dharwad Traffic Police registered a case and investigated the matter in detail and filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus. 11. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing necessary formalities, summoned the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 12. After due trial, accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of IMV Act and sentenced as referred to supra. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5086 CRL.RP No. 100305 of 2017 13. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.57/2017. 14. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the material evidence placed on record, confirmed by the order of the learned Trial Magistrate by supplementing the additional reasons for sustained the order of conviction following the dictum of the Hon’be Apex Court in the case of Rathnashalvan v. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 3 SCC 474. 15. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision. 16. Sri.Shivasai M. Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that the Trial Court failed to note that because of this skid of the motorcycle, he came and fell beneath the bus resulting in injuries sustained by - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5086 CRL.RP No. 100305 of 2017 him and complainant being the employee of the deceased, he is an implanted eye witness in the incident. However, said aspect of the matter is not properly taken note of by the learned Trial Magistrate while convicting the accused which has been mechanically approved by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 17. Alternatively, he contended that in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction, by enhancing the fine amount, sentence of imprisonment may be set aside as the conviction would come in the way of discharging the duty by the driver of the bus and sought for allowing the revision petition. 18. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent supports the impugned judgments. 19. He would further contend that material on record is sufficient enough to maintain the order of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5086 CRL.RP No. 100305 of 2017 conviction inasmuch as eye witness to the incident was also proceeding in the same direction that of the deceased and has supported the case of the prosecution in toto with graphic details. 20. He would further contend that driver of the bus no doubt stopped the bus for a while but on seeing the gathering of the people near the place of incident, ran away from the spot without even informing the police or trying to help the injured to shift to the hospital which shows that somehow the accused was interested in escaping away from the rigors of law. Therefore, no mercy can be shown to the accused and very fact that he was guilty of the offence alleged against him, he ran away from the spot and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 21. Having heard the arguments of the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5086 CRL.RP No. 100305 of 2017 22. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: i. Whether the revision petitioner makes out a case that impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus, calls for interference? ii. Whether the sentence is excessive? iii. What order? REG. POINT No.1: 23. In the case on hand, admittedly, revision petitioner was the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA- 25/F-2830 as on the date of incident. Complainant and Kiran Kanavi were proceeding on another vehicle in the same direction that of the deceased. They unequivocally deposed before the Court about the complaint averments and they also deposed before the Court with graphic details as to what transpired near the place of incident near Navalur Cross. 24. Complainant and Kiran Kanavi deposed that in the process of overtaking the car, driver of the bus drove - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5086 CRL.RP No. 100305 of 2017 the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle wherein the deceased was the rider. Because of the impact of the accident, Raghavendra Karpoor fell down and sustained fatal injuries. 25. The public gathered there, secured the ambulance and also intimated the same to the police. By the time, the injured was shifted to the hospital, injured lost his life enroute to the hospital. 26. These aspects of the matter are established by the prosecution by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. 27. Merely on the ground that the complainant is an employee of the deceased would not ipso facto make out a case that he is an interested witness and he has falsely implicated the driver of the bus in the accident. 28. Moreover, no explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the revision petitioner at the time of recording - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5086 CRL.RP No. 100305 of 2017 the accused statement nor any defence evidence is placed on record. 29. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in convicting the accused. 30. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court reappreicated the material on record while upholding the order of conviction. 31. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court not only reappreciated the material evidence on record but also supplemented additional reasons for maintaining the conviction order inter alia holding in paragraph No.52 as under: Thus, in the case on hand, there is culpable rashness on the part of the accused being the Appellant in driving the offending bus with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow. He tried to overtake the car without taking basic precautions which ought to have been taken by the accused. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment aptly applicable to the present case. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5086 CRL.RP No. 100305 of 2017 32. This Court having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction, reconsidered the material facts and did not find that the grounds urged in the revision petition would be sufficient enough to upset the impugned orders of conviction passed by both the Courts with logical and sound reasons. 33. Moreover, non explanation of the incident nor placing version of the revision petitioner on record, principles of law enunciated in the case of Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2012 SC 2986, needs to be applied into the facts of the case while upholding the order of conviction. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in negative. REG.POINT No.2: 34. In the case on hand, admittedly, the accident has occurred in the evening hours. The spot sketch shown which is marked as Ex.P.3 shows the width of the road is 26 feet. Motorcycle was on the left side which was 8 feet - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5086 CRL.RP No. 100305 of 2017 away from the kaccha road. Bus having been moved away from the place of incident is not forthcoming from the sketch. 35. Taking note of place of incident and also taking note of the fact that place of accident is a highway and a busy road, motorcycle is also found 8 feet away from the place of incident and death has occurred within a short span of accident, sentence of imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 304A of IPC needs to be reduced to six months by following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. REG.POINT No.3: 36. In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 as above, following: - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5086 CRL.RP No. 100305 of 2017 ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of IMV Act, sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC is reduced from one year to six months on the condition that revision petitioner shall pay enhanced fine of Rs.25,000/- which can be paid as compensation to the dependants of the deceased. iii. Time is granted for the revision petitioner to pay the enhanced fine amount till 30.04.2025 failing which would result in automatic restoration of the sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. iv. Rest of the sentence stands unaltered. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5086 CRL.RP No. 100305 of 2017 v. On deposit of enhanced fine amount of Rs.25,000/-, same may be paid to dependants of deceased. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 34