- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22426 CRL.RP No. 574 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.574 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI. CHELUVARAJU S/O LATE SINGARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT MADHUVINAKODI, K.R.PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.F-1/2, 2ND STAGE, 2ND WARD, WEAVERS COLONY, MYSURU – 570 023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SUDHARSHAN L, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY K.R. TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, MYSURU,REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT, BANGALORE – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN C.C.NO.90/2012 DATED 26.07.2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT MYSORE AND IN CRL.APPEAL NO.170/2016 DATED 20.03.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSORE. Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22426 CRL.RP No. 574 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Sudarshan L, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C No.90/2012 and sentenced as under: “Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 is convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The accused No.1 is convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The accused No.1 is convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and shall pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22426 CRL.RP No. 574 of 2018 Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C the accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sectin 134 (A) & (B) r/w Section 187 and Section 3(1) r/w Section 181 and Section 5(1) r/w Section 180 of IMV Act.” 3. The Order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.170/2016. Thereafter, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re-appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the appeal by considered judgment dated 20.03.2018. 4. Subsequent there to, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 5. Sri Sudarshan L. learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, would vehemently contend that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, ignoring the defence evidence in the form of oral testimony of DWs-1, 2 and 3 and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22426 CRL.RP No. 574 of 2018 documentary evidence placed on record vide Exhibits D-1 to D- 4 and thus sought for allowing the revision. 6. He would also contend that in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction, the Court may consider enhancing the fine amount reasonably and set aside the imprisonment for the offence under Sections 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and sought for allowing the revision petition to such an extent. 7. Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader, supports the impugned judgment. 8. He would contend that there is no dispute that petitioner is the driver of the offending vehicle which is a tipper lorry and because of his negligent driving, victim by name Mehool Kashyap lost is valuable life. Therefore, revision petition is to be dismissed. 9. He would further contend that the defence evidence has been considered by the learned Trial Magistrate and thereafter held that the defence evidence was not sufficient to accept the version of the accused in paragraph Nos.19 and 20 of its - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22426 CRL.RP No. 574 of 2018 judgment. Thus, he sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, prosecution is successful in establishing that petitioner is the driver of the tipper lorry bearing No.KA-01/D-3837 which dashed against the car bearing No.KA-04/P-8526, whereby inmates of the car sustained injuries and one among them namely Mehool Kashyap died on the way to the hospital. 12. The sketch that is placed on record and the testimony of the injured witness is sufficient enough to establish that Mehool Kashyap lost his life by sustaining the injuries in the road traffic accident. 13. Much is argued about the non consideration of the defence evidence in proper perspective. In this regard, it is just and necessary to cull out paragraphs 19 and 29 of the judgment of the Trial Magistrate which reads as under: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22426 CRL.RP No. 574 of 2018 “19. The accused No.1 and 2 have also examined as DWs.1 and 2 and another witness by name Kumar is examined as DW.3. DW.3 is stated to be an inmate in the Tipper Lorry. He has deposed that the accident has occurred due to the fault of the car driver. The presence of DW.3 in the Tipper Lorry is disputed by the prosecution. DW.1 has deposed that the car came with high speed and dashed to the vehicle. 20. The learned APP has argued that the driver of the lorry would have avoided the accident if he would have taken care while turning his lorry. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the car driver was in hurry to reach the home after watching movie and he himself dashed the vehicle to the Tipper Lorry. On perusal of evidence of PWs.1 to 4 who have categorically deposed that the Tipper Lorry came with high speed without head lights and caused the accident is not shaken during the cross-examination. Pws.1 to 4 are injured eye witnesses. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 cannot be brushed aside easily. Nothing is elicited during the cross-examination of Pws.1 to 4 about the fault of the car driver. The accident is admitted, the presence of the accused No.1 is also admitted. DW.1 tried to make allegation on the driver of the car stating that the car driver was in speed. As per the sketch ExP-13 the accident has occurred while the lorry was taking turn and it came on the way where the car was proceeding. Except PW.8 all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Even though, the DW.3 is examined - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22426 CRL.RP No. 574 of 2018 stating that he was also proceeding in the Tipper Lorry, his presence was not cited during the time of the accident and at the time of filing the charge sheet after investigation. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that PW.5 was not at all present during the time of accident. The accident has occurred during the night hours. PW.5 has deposed that the car was cement colour car wherein as per the IMV report it is a green colour car. However, mere lapse in identifying the colour of the car will not shake the evidence of PW.5 in supporting the allegations of rash and negligent driving of the accused. Hence, by considering all the material on record the oral evidence of all the prosecution witnesses who have supported the case is credible and trust worthy which is also supported by the evidence of Investigation Officer the prosecution has established that the accused No.1 drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.” 14. D.W.1-Cheluvaraju is the accused. In his examination-in- chief, he has specifically stated that he was the driver of the tipper lorry and he had parked the lorry on the service road and he had not brought the vehicle to the main road. It is his case that Ford Icon car was proceeding from Sterling theatre side towards J.P Nagar and headlight was switched on. On observing the movement of the car with headlight on, he has - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22426 CRL.RP No. 574 of 2018 stopped the lorry. But it is the driver of the car who lost the control and dashed against the parked lorry. 15. In other words, the sum and substance of evidence of DW-1 is that it is the car driver who is responsible for the accident and not the driver of the tipper lorry. 16. In his cross-examination, D.W-1 has answered that the lorry was required to proceed towards Sterling theatre. He had to pass through Prasad Gas godown to reach Sterling theatre road. He admits that to reach the main road, he had to take a turn from the service road. 17. A suggestion is made to him that while so turning to the main road, the driver of the car had come to the extreme right side of the road whereby he hit the lorry. However he admits that there is damage caused to the left side of the tipper lorry and right side of the car. Sketch that has been placed on record would probabilise the suggestions made to DW-1 in the cross-examination that the lorry had moved to the extreme right side of the road while taking turn onto the main road while coming from the service road. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22426 CRL.RP No. 574 of 2018 18. The IMV report in respect of car as well as the tipper lorry is placed on record as Exhibit P-14. On perusal of the IMV report, it is crystal clear that the suggestions made to DW-1 is correct and DW-1 has Denied the same in order to escape away from the clutches of law. 19. DW-2 is the owner of the lorry. He is a hearsay witness as he came to know about the accident later. DW-3 is a chance witness who deposed that he was the inmate of tipper lorry and sitting by the side of the accused in the tipper lorry. He also deposed in line with the examination-in-chief of D.W-1. 20. However, in his examination-in-chief itself, he has stated that 5 feet earlier to the place of incident, he had advised the accused to drive the lorry slowly. Why DW-3 who is a witness for the accused would speak so in the examination-in-chief itself is a question that runs contrary to the defence taken by the accused. 21. Further, in his cross-examination, he admits that tipper lorry had moved to the main road which is contrary to the examination-in-chief of DW-1. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22426 CRL.RP No. 574 of 2018 22. Answer elicited in the evidence of DW-3 coupled with the sketch and the prosecution evidence makes it clear that the tipper lorry was not parked on the service road but it was taken to the main road to reach towards Sterling theatre and at that juncture, tipper lorry had moved to the extreme right side of the road whereby it hit the Car which was moving on the main road resulting in the accident. 23. Thus, defence taken by the accused having not been probabilised and there is overwhelming material evidence on record on behalf of the prosecution including the testimony of the injured eyewitness who did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity against the petitioner, this Court having regard to the limited revisional powers, does not find any good grounds to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, same is maintained. 24. This would take this Court to the next limb of the argument viz., enhancing the fine amount and setting aside the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22426 CRL.RP No. 574 of 2018 imprisonment of six months for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 25. Pertinently, the learned Judge did consider the said plea which was canvassed before the First Appellate Court in a pragmatic manner. Learned Judge has noted the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015)5 SCC 182 and thereafter held that benevolent piece of legislation namely Probation of Offenders Act is not applicable to the road traffic accident convictions and therefore negated the plea canvassed on behalf of the accused that by enhancing the fine amount sentence of imprisonment needs to be set aside. 26. In other words, there are cogent and convincing reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court while upholding the order of sentence as well. Moreover, when the revision petitioner has gone to the extent of blaming the driver of the car for the accident by placing false evidence which has been belied by the testimony of DW-3, who is a witness on behalf of the accused, and in the absence of any mitigating circumstances, this Court - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22426 CRL.RP No. 574 of 2018 does not find any good reasons to set aside the imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 27. Further, concept of ‘blood money’ is alien to the Indian Criminal Jurisprudence especially in the area of sentencing policy. 28. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Revision Petition is dismissed. ii. Time is granted for the petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court for serving the remaining part of sentence, till 10th May 2026. iii. Office to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this Order. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 78