- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2977 CRL.RP No. 200016 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200016/2025 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: VAIJANATH S/O MEGARAJ ILGER, AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. NIDAGUNDA VILLAGE, TQ. CHINCHOLI, DIST. KALABURAGI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI N.S. RATANAKUMAR, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI BASAVALING NASI, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE THROUGH MIRYAN P.S., NOW REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585 103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP) Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2977 CRL.RP No. 200016 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 R/W. SECTION 442 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.58/2019 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI, SITTING AT SEDAM, DTD.16.07.2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE BY JUDGMENT C.C. NO.216/2016 PASSED BY PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINCHOLI DTD.27.08.2019. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard learned counsel Sri N.S. Ratankumar for learned counsel Sri Basavaling Nasi, appearing for the petitioner, and learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, for respondent – State. 2. Accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No. 216/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.58/2019, is in this revision petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2977 CRL.RP No. 200016 of 2025 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1 A complaint came to be lodged with Miryan Police Station by Mosel S/o. Devidas on 27.02.2016 which was registered in Crime No.13/2016 in respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on 27.02.2016 at about 06.30 a.m. involving a lorry bearing No.KA-01/LB-4284 and motorcycle bearing No.AP-28/DL-6493 in the stone quarry. According to the complaint averments, one Sampath had been to the stone quarry on his aforesaid motorcycle for quarrying work. 3.2 Complainant received the telephone call at about 06.45 a.m., on 27.02.2016 from Janardhan and complainant was intimated that when Sampath was proceeding on the motorcycle from Kalloor Village to Chettinad Cements Factory Gate, a lorry came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle, whereby, Sampath fell down and sustained grievous - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2977 CRL.RP No. 200016 of 2025 injuries. Janardhan, Vithal and Ramulu secured the presence of ambulance and they were proceeding towards the Government Hospital, Chincholli. 3.3 On receipt of such information over telephone, complainant along with Ramesh Dhodmani visited the Chincholli Hospital, by the time the elder brother of the complainant was no more. Based on the complaint, Police registered the case and investigated the matter and after thorough investigation filed charge. 3.4 The presence of the accused was secured and after due trial, accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month for the offence under Section 279 and 1 year for the offence under Section 304A IPC. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2977 CRL.RP No. 200016 of 2025 4. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A. No.58/2019. 5. Learned in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard arguments of the parties in detail and by judgment dated 16.07.2024 dismissed the appeal of the accused. 6. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that the IMV Report marked at Ex.P4 does not indicate any damages to the lorry and therefore, very genesis of the crime itself in dispute and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. He would further contend that it is the deceased, who had dashed against the lorry under the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2977 CRL.RP No. 200016 of 2025 influence of liquor and therefore, the oral evidence of PW8 coupled with Ex.P4 would probablise the defence taken by the accused which has not been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge and the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court and sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Alternatively, he would submit that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction by enhancing fine imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A of IPC may be set aside. 10. Per contra, Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would support the impugned judgment. 11. He would further contend that admittedly complainant and wife of the deceased were made known about the incident through telephone call made by Janardhan, who was eyewitness to the incident and supported the case of the prosecution in toto. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2977 CRL.RP No. 200016 of 2025 12. He would also contend that the examination of the accused did not nurture any enmity or animosity against the accused so as to falsely implicate him and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 13. Learned High Court Government Pleader would further contend that having regard to the fact that an innocent life has been lost on account of rash and negligent driving of lorry by the petitioner, no mercy can be shown and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, even though the petitioner has disputed very accident at the time of recording the accused statement, material on record especially the seizure of the lorry and the spot sketch would establish the accident. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2977 CRL.RP No. 200016 of 2025 15. The indemnity bond marked at Ex.P6 would make is clear that owner of the lorry unequivocally executed the indemnity bond for release of the lorry, which has been seized by the jurisdictional Police in respect of the road traffic accident from the spot of the accident. 16. There is no dispute that it is the petitioner was the driver of the lorry at the relevant point of time. 17. The defence of the petitioner is that it is accused who dashed against the lorry under the influence of the liquor and lorry driver was diligent in driving the vehicle. 18. Such a defence was not probablised by the accused by placing cogent evidence on record. Merely on the ground that there is no damage noticed on the lorry and only left side tail-lamp been damaged on the hind side of the lorry would not be sufficient enough to hold that there was no negligence on the part of the lorry driver. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2977 CRL.RP No. 200016 of 2025 19. Further, the injuries noted in the post mortem report along with the photographs of the deceased marked at Exs.P10, P11 and P12 would make it clear that the grievous injuries sustained by Sampath resulted in his death. 20. Accidental death of the deceased having been not disputed and there is no explanation whatsoever is forthcoming in respect of the accident, following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan1 this Court is of the considered view that the conviction order needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 21. Having said thus, next aspect that needs to be considered is whether the sentence ordered by the Trial Court, confirmed by the first Appellate Court is appropriate sentence having regard to the proved offences. 1 (2012) 9 SCC 284 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2977 CRL.RP No. 200016 of 2025 22. Learned Trial Judge convicted the accused and imposed 01 month imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and one year Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. 23. Since, there is only one death and conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC has been recorded by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC cannot be countenanced in law in view of the doctrine of merger. 24. Further, taking note of the fact that the motorcycle is also damaged severally including head lamp, ordered 01 year punishment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC needs to be reduced to six months in view of principle enunciated in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi2. 2 (2015) 5 SCC 182 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2977 CRL.RP No. 200016 of 2025 25. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussions the following: ORDER i. The revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC read with 187 of M.V. Act, sentence ordered by the Trial Court, confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified by setting aside the separate sentence of 01 month for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and reducing the sentence of imprisonment of one year to six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. iii. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records along copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V. SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54 CT:PK