- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23140 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1440 OF 2022 BETWEEN: NARENDRA, S/O CHANNIGGARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME IS WRONGLY SHOWN AS CHANNAGIRIYAPPA BEFORE TRIAL COURT BY THE PROSECUTION) OCC.DRIVER, R/O KOTE SIRA TOWN, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 137. …PETITIONER (BY SRI N.M.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R B DESHPANDE,ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PAVAGADA POLICE STATION, PAVAGADA CIRCLE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561202. REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY Smt. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 15.12.2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, PAVAGADA IN C.C.NO.1169/2014 CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.10.2022 PASSED BY THE IV Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23140 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2022 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKURU SITTING AT MADHUGIRI IN CRL.A.NO.5015/2021 (CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279, 304A OF IPC) AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF THE CHARGE LEVELED AGAINST HIM. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.N.M.Bhat for the petitioner and Smt.Waheeda.M.M. for the respondent. 2. Though the matter is listed for admission, same is taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties. 3. Petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 304A and 2 months imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and compensation of Rs.6,000/- was ordered to be paid out of the fine amount recovered. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23140 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2022 4. The order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5015/2021. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. 5. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that petitioner being the driver of an ambulance vehicle was required to move swiftly on the road. Therefore, speed is not the only criteria which could be termed as rashness in the case on hand and it is the duty of the other riders/drivers of the vehicles on road to pave the way for the ambulance. 6. Unfortunately in the case on hand, the deceased who was the rider of the motorcycle could not make the way for the ambulance which was driven by the petitioner and therefore, the ambulance hit the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23140 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2022 motorcyclist whereby Mehaboob Sab being the rider of the motorcycle suffered injuries. 7. It is found from the records that the petitioner himself stopped the ambulance vehicle and shifted the injured in the very same ambulance to the hospital. Despite best treatment, Mehaboob Sab could not survive and therefore, both the Courts committed wrong in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 279 and 304A of IPC and sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. Alternatively, Sri.N.M.Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the event this court upholding the order of conviction, shall take note of the fact that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family and is prepared to compensate the dependants of Mehaboob Sab and hence, sought for setting aside the imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and also sought for allowing the revision petition in-part. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23140 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2022 9. Per contra, Smt.Waheeda.M.M, learned High Court Government Pleader, supports the impugned judgment. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, Smt.Waheeda.M.M would contend that just because the petitioner is the driver of an ambulance, it would not give a license for him to drive the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and take away the life of a innocent human being and therefore, no mercy can be shown and 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. On such perusal of the material on record in Ex.P1 which is the complaint, it has been mentioned that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a speed and negligent manner. Eye witnesses to the incident have also reiterated the same. 11. Petitioner being the driver of an ambulance vehicle, was required to move the said vehicle swiftly and therefore, speed cannot be the sole criteria in adjudging the negligence on the part of the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23140 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2022 12. However, while so driving the ambulance also, being a professional driver, petitioner is required to exercise such necessary caution so as to avoid the accident on the road by him driving the vehicle in a swift manner. 13. In other words, while there is a duty cast on the other vehicle drivers/riders to pave the way for ambulance, petitioner is also required to exercise due caution while driving the ambulance. It is not uncommon that civic sense hardly prevails in the drivers/riders of the other vehicles in paving the way for ambulance, fire extinguisher or at times the police. On the contrary, when some vehicle drivers pave the way for the ambulance or other related essential services vehicles, taking advantage of the same, some vehicle drivers will make use of paving the way in driving their vehicles fast. 14. Whether at all in the case on hand there was sufficient margin for the petitioner to avoid the accident and then move further is not forthcoming on record, as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23140 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2022 accused has not stated so in his statement while recording the accused statement. While answering the incriminating circumstances at the time of recording the accused's statement as is contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, for the question number 12, he has answered as under. "DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ vÁ£ÀÄ CA§ÄåÉ£Àì ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ZÁ®PÀ£ÁzÀ ªÉÊ.J£ï. ºÉƸÀPÉÆÃmÉ PÀqɬÄAzÀ ¥ÁªÀUÀqÀ PÀqÉUÉ ¥ÉñÉAmï PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ, £À£Àß UÁrUÉ M§â ræAPïì ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ §AzÀÄ rQÌ ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É. £Á£ÀÄ PÀÆqÀÉà ¸ÀzÀj rQÌ¥Àr¹zÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß CA§ÄåÉ£ïì£À°è gÉÆÃVAiÉÆA¢UÉ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV zÁR°¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ D¢£À ¸ÁÖ¥sï £ÉgÉègÀªÀgÀÄ EzÀÝgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj rQÌ¥Àr¹zÀ ªÀåQÛ CweÉÆÃgÁV §AzÀÄ rQÌ ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É. £À£ÀßzÉãÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà£ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ªÀÄvÉÛãÀÄ ºÉüÀªÀÅzÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É." 15. It is his case that it is Mehaboob Sab who hit the ambulance vehicle driven by the petitioner and he was in a drunken state. Unfortunately, the Post Mortem report does not mention the smelling of alcohol from the body. Further, the petitioner did not challenge the charge sheet. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the order of conviction needs to be upheld. 16. This would take this Court to the alternate submission canvassed on behalf of the petitioner. Since - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23140 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2022 there is a plausible version that has been placed on record but not probabilised by placing necessary evidence, this is a case where entire blame cannot be put on the accused. 17. It is pertinent to note the immediate conduct of the petitioner after the incident, which cannot be lost sight of by this Court while considering the alternate submission canvassed on behalf of the petitioner. 18. In fact, the Trial Magistrate or the First Appellate Court was required to consider the explanation offered by the accused in respect of the incident while answering question number 12 especially while imposing the suitable punishment. 19. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that role of the Court while passing the order of conviction is altogether different from the role to be played when the appropriate sentence is to be passed in a given case while considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances available in that particular case. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23140 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2022 20. In the case on hand, since the petitioner himself took the injured in the very same ambulance to the hospital and got admitted him to the hospital and not ran away from the spot is a circumstance that would weigh in favour of the petitioner in appreciating the stand taken by the petitioner and also same can be treated as a mitigating circumstance. 21. Further, the petitioner is ready to pay a sizable amount as compensation to the dependents of Mehaboob Sab in lieu of the imprisonment ordered by the Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 22. Pertinently when the Trial Magistrate has imposed the one year punishment for the offence under Section 304A of IPC, there could not have been any separate sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 of IPC. Though both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by applying the principles of doctrine of merger separate sentence of imprisonment for offence under section 279 of IPC is impermissible. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23140 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2022 23. Therefore, the imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 of IPC could not be countenanced in law at all. Be it what it may, since the Court is now exercising its power in the Revisional Jurisdiction to modify the sentence of imprisonment ordered by this Court, further discussion on the said aspect is unnecessary. 24. Taking note of the mitigating circumstances placed on record which is not disputed by the prosecution and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner has offered to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as additional compensation to the dependents of Mehaboob Sab who have already received a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 25. The sentence of imprisonment ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs to be modified by directing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for the day. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23140 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2022 26. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision Petition allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, the sentence ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified by directing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the rising of the Court and to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which is to be paid as compensation to the wife of Mehaboob Sab in addition to the sum of Rs.6,000/- ordered by the Trial Magistrate. (iii) Time is granted to pay the enhanced fine amount till 31.05.2026. In case of failure to pay the enhanced fine amount, petitioner shall undergo imprisonment ordered by trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23140 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2022 (iv) Office is directed to return Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE DS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14