- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14053 CRL.RP No. 63 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 63 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI. SHIVANESHAN S/O. BALARAMAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 5TH CROSS, SUBBANNA GARDEN, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA.H.R., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY NANDAGUDI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.61/2013 DATED 06.12.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED ON 31.10.2013 IN C.C.NO.914/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HOSKOTE. Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14053 CRL.RP No. 63 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri M.S. Manjunath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for the respondent. 2. Accused is the revision petitioner, who suffered an order of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and Sections 134(a) and 134(b) r/w Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to undergo 6 months' imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 and for the offence under Section 304A for the period of 2 years, which was upheld by the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.61/2013. 3. The facts of the prosecution case are as under: 3.1. At about 2.30 a.m. of the intervening night of 21/22.10.2010 on Bengaluru-Kolar NH-4, accused being the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14053 CRL.RP No. 63 of 2018 driver of the container lorry bearing Registration No.KA-04-B-5697 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP- 28-Z-2419, which was moving from the opposite direction towards Kolar due to which one of the passengers of the bus, namely Maheshwari, succumbed to the injuries, and co-passengers sustained grievous injuries and few more passengers sustained simple injuries. 3.2. Accused, without even attending to the injured, ran away from the spot. 3.3. Thereby, accused was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC and Sections 134A and Section 134B r/w Section 187 of the IMV Act. 3.4. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of those offences and summoned accused and recorded plea. Accused pleaded not guilty. Hence, trial was held. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14053 CRL.RP No. 63 of 2018 4. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined 11 witnesses. Among them, testimony of injured witnesses would assume greater importance. Remaining witnesses are punch witnesses and investigation officers. Prosecution placed on record 30 documents, which are exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P30. Among them, wound certificates of the injured witnesses and the postmortem report of deceased Maheshwari assume greater importance. 5. On conclusion of recording of evidence, accused's statement as is contemplated under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded. Later on, driver of the offending lorry got examined himself as DW1. 6. Learned trial Magistrate on conclusion of recording of evidence heard the arguments of the parties and convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences, except for the offence under Sections 134A and 134B r/w of the IMV Act, and granted 2 years' imprisonment for the highest offence under Section 304A of IPC. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14053 CRL.RP No. 63 of 2018 7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.61/2013. 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the Parties in detail and, on re-appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the appeal. 9. Being further aggrieved by same, accused is before this Court. 10. Sri. H.R.Manjunath, learned counsel would contend that injured witnesses could not have spoken about the incident having regard to the time of accident and the arrangement of the seats in the bus. Therefore, negligence of the revision petitioner is not established by the prosecution by placing necessary, cogent, and convincing evidence on record. Thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14053 CRL.RP No. 63 of 2018 11. Alternatively, Sri.H.R.Manjunath, learned counsel would contend that in the event this Court upholds the order of conviction, sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A of IPC and other offences be set aside by enhancing the fine amount. 12. Per contra, Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader, would support the impugned judgment. 13. He would further contend that in the case on hand, one person is dead, six persons are grievously injured and 4 persons sustained simple injuries, which establishes the gravity of the offence, which is attributable totally to the negligent driving of the revision petitioner and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in total. 14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of material on record, in the case on hand, prosecution was able to establish that it is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14053 CRL.RP No. 63 of 2018 the driver of the lorry who came on the wrong side in the process of overtaking ongoing vehicle and dashed against the bus, which was proceeding from the opposite side towards Kolar. 16. The place of accident and involvement of lorry bearing Registration No.KA-04-B-5697 and APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-2419, are not in dispute. 17. However, the accused has tried to establish the fact that some road work was in progress at the place of accident and it is the driver of the bus who came in the opposite direction on the wrong side resulting in the accident. 18. On the contrary, the material evidence placed on record by the prosecution coupled with the answers elicited in the cross-examination of the accused would make it amply clear that it is the negligent driving of the revision petitioner which resulted in the accident. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14053 CRL.RP No. 63 of 2018 19. It is pertinent to note that in cross-examination of accused, it has been elicited by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the driver of the lorry moved on the wrong side of the road in the process of overtaking and thus resulted in the accident. 20. Further, driver of the lorry did not choose to stop the lorry at the place of incident and he ran away from the spot. All these factors were included cumulatively. Order of conviction recorded by Trial Magistrate which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference by this Court that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 21. Having said thus, for imposing the maximum punishment of two years for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, no proper reasons are assigned by the Trial Magistrate or by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. 22. For the offence under Section 338 of IPC, a separate sentence has been passed. Merely on establishing - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14053 CRL.RP No. 63 of 2018 the fact that six persons have been grievously injured, it cannot be a ground for awarding maximum punishment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. 23. Accordingly, a case is made out to interfere with the quantum of sentence for the offence under Section 304A of IPC by reducing the imprisonment period from two years to one year simple imprisonment. 24. The other mitigating factor canvas before this Court is that accused has undergone a surgery and he is aged 59 years, which is not sufficient enough to further reduce the punishment. 25. Moreover, imprisonment is separately ordered for the offence under Section 279 of IPC, merging with 337, 338 and 304A IPC. Therefore, a separate sentence for the offence under Section 279 of IPC cannot be countenanced in law. 26. Accordingly, following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14053 CRL.RP No. 63 of 2018 ORDER i) Revision petition is allowed in part. ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and Section 134A and 134B r/w Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, sentence ordered by Trial Magistrate which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified as under: a) Separate sentence ordered by Trial Magistrate which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence under Section 279 IPC is hereby set aside. b) Likewise, sentence ordered by Trial Magistrate which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence under Section 304A of IPC is reduced from two years to one year of simple imprisonment. c) Rest of sentence stands unaltered. d) Accused/revision petitioner shall surrender before the learned Trial Magistrate on or before 31.03.2026. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14053 CRL.RP No. 63 of 2018 e) Office is directed to return the trial Court records with a copy of this order forthwith for issue of a modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52