- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13178 CRL.RP No. 573 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 573 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI NANDEESH S/O BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEAWRS R/AT DUGGANAHALLI VILALGE KIRUGAVALU HOBLI, MADDURU TALUK, MANDYA PIN CODE 571424 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RAKSHA KEERTHANA.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KEMPARAJU., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K M DODDI POLICE STATION MANDYA DIST REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.02.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDG, MANDYA, IN CRIMINAL Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13178 CRL.RP No. 573 of 2021 APPEAL. NO. 72/2020 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 24.09.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT MADDUR IN C.C.NO.375/2011 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279,304(A) OF IPC, AND 187 OF MV ACT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Smt.Raksha Keerthana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Kemparaju, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. After addressing the arguments for considerable amount of time yesterday and today, learned counsel for the revision petitioner files a memo. Memo reads as under: “The counsel for petitioner submits that the alleged incident is said to have occurred at early morning at 5 a.m. and there is no intention on the part of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13178 CRL.RP No. 573 of 2021 accused, and the Hon’ble Trial Court has sentenced for one year imprisonment which is sever. He is the only bread winner and has to look after family. Therefore, requesting the Hon’ble Court to consider the mitigating circumstance into consideration and show mercy on the petitioner by reducing sentence to 6 months in the interest of justice.” 3. Placing the memo on record, conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘IPC’ for short), this would take this Court to the question of sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. 4. Learned Trial Magistrate taking note of the attendant fact and circumstances of the case, imposed one year simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC with fine amount of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that petitioner is a family person and incident has occurred beyond the human control and therefore, maximum - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13178 CRL.RP No. 573 of 2021 lenience can be shown by enhancing the fine amount reasonably which can be paid as compensation to the dependants of the deceased and jail sentence may be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent would contend that in a matter of this nature, showing leniency by enhancing the fine amount would not arise inasmuch as a valuable human life has been lost totally on account of the negligent driving of the lorry by the revision petitioner and therefore, sentence needs no further modification. 7. What is the appropriate sentence in a matter of this nature and whether benevolent provisions of the Prevention of Offenders Act can be extended to the accused who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, is no longer res integra. 8. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182 is held as under: “13. In our considered view the decision in the said case has to be confined to the facts of that case. It cannot be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13178 CRL.RP No. 573 of 2021 said as a proposition of law that whenever an accused offers acceptable compensation for rehabilitation of a victim, regardless of the gravity of the crime under Section 304-A IPC, there can be reduction of sentence. 14. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision in Balwinder Singh [State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh, (2012) 2 SCC 182 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 706] wherein the High Court had allowed the revision and reduced the quantum of sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337, 279 IPC by reducing the sentence of imprisonment already undergone, that is, 15 days. The Court referred to the decision in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana [Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1208] and reproduced two paragraphs which we feel extremely necessary for reproduction : (Balwinder Singh case [State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh, (2012) 2 SCC 182 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 706] , SCC pp. 186-87, para 12) “12. … ‘1. When automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13178 CRL.RP No. 573 of 2021 mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic. *** 13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly, that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court. He - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13178 CRL.RP No. 573 of 2021 must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of the vehicle he cannot escape from a jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.’ (Dalbir Singh case [Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1208] , SCC pp. 84-85 & 87, paras 1 & 13)” 9. The principles of law enunciated in the aforesaid decision, when applied to the facts of the case, argument putforth on behalf of the revision petitioner that sentence of imprisonment needs to be set aside in toto by enhancing the fine amount cannot be countenanced in law. 10. At the same time, taking note of the fact that revision petitioner is having a family to maintain and incident has occurred beyond the human control as accident has occurred at about 5.30 a.m., sentence of imprisonment of one year, if reduced to six months, ends of justice would be met. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13178 CRL.RP No. 573 of 2021 11. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is reduced to six months simple imprisonment. iii. Rest of sentence stands unaltered. iv. Accused/revision petitioner shall surrender before the learned Trial Magistrate on or before 31.03.2026. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32