Karnataka High Court
Dundappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330
CRL.RP No. 100115 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100115 OF 2016
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
DUNDAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA LINGARADDI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GULAGALJAMBAGI, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY LOKAPUR P.S.,
REP. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
signed by V
N BADIGER
VN
BADIGER Date:
2025.03.12
10:31:54
+0530
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 AND
401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THER RECORDS IN
C.C.NO.582/2008 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED ADDL. JMFC MUDHOL,
ALLOW THIS CR.R.P. BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DTD. 30.04.2016 BY THE 1ST ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BAGALKOTE SITTING AT JAMAKHANDI IN
CRL.APL.NO.68/2013 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL AND TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DTD.20.06.2013 PASSED IN
C.C.NO. 582/2008 BY THE LEARNED ADDL. JMFC, MUDHOL, FOR
OFFENCES P/U/SECTIONS 279, 337, 338 AND 304(A) OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330
CRL.RP No. 100115 of 2016
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.K.L.Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the parties.
2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.582/2008 and sentenced as under; has preferred this revision petition.
::ORDER::
"Acting under Sec.255 (2) of Cr.P.C. Accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.279 of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of 6 months and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall further undergo S.I. for a period of 1 month.
Acting under Sec.255 (2) of Cr.P.C. Accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.337 of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of 3 months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall further undergo S.I. for a period of 1 month.
Acting under Sec.255 (2) of Cr.P.C. Accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.338 of IPC and -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330 CRL.RP No. 100115 of 2016 sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of 6 months and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall further undergo S.I. for a period of 1 month.
Acting under Sec.255 (2) of Cr.P.C. Accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.304(A) of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of 1 year and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall further undergo S.I. for a period of 3 months.
Acting U/sec.428 of Cr.P.C. the period undergone by the accused if any in the Judicial Custody is hereby given set-off.
The interim custody of vehicle Tractor Bearing No.KA-48 T 2183 and Trailer No.KA- 28 T 2184 is already released are made absolute.
Supply free copy of Judgment to the accused.
The MO.1 to 3 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over."
3. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under:
4. On 15.08.2008 at about 7.00 p.m., within the limits of the Lokapur Police Station on Bagalkot road, accused being the driver of Tractor bearing registration No.KA-48/T-2183 drove the same in a rash and negligent -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330 CRL.RP No. 100115 of 2016 manner and because of his negligence driving, hind side of Trailer hit the milestone which was erected on left side of the road. As a result, Trailer turtled; the complainant and 43 other persons who are standing by the side of the road waiting for the vehicle, have suffered simple injuries and grievous injuries. One among them namely Jayashree D/o Rudrappa Chavan who sustained grievous injuries on the way to Lokapur Government Hospital, succumbed to the injuries at about 8.00 p.m.
5. Based on the complaint lodged by one of the injured, the police registered the case for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') and conducted detailed investigation interalia collected the wound certificated and post mortem report of the Jayashree D/o Rudrappa Chavan and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330 CRL.RP No. 100115 of 2016
6. Presence of the accused was secured by the trial magistrate and after due trial, he was convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.68/2013.
8. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments parties in detail in the light of the appeal grounds and on re- appreciation of the material evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal by considered judgment dated 30.04.2016.
9. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court in this revision petition.
10. Sri.K.L.Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that the material evidence placed on record is not properly appreciated by the both -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330 CRL.RP No. 100115 of 2016 the courts while recording the order of conviction of the revision petitioner resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition.
11. He would further contend that investigation officer clearly admitted that there was no milestone on the left side of the road. But he has admitted that there is milestone on the right side of the road. Therefore, very genesis of the prosecution case itself is doubtful and how exactly the Trailer got turtled is not established by the prosecution. He further argued that at any rate, the material on record would not be sufficient enough to infer the existence of negligence on the part of the revision petitioner in the incident and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition.
12. Sri.K.L.Patil, would also contend that very fact that the injured persons were standing on the road is lost sight of by investigation agency which has been not properly appreciated by the learned trial judge and learned judge in the First Appellate Court, whereby there could not -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330 CRL.RP No. 100115 of 2016 have been any negligence attributable to the petitioner who was the driver of the Tractor and thus sought for allowing the revision petition.
13. Alternatively, Sri.K.L.Patil would submit that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction for the aforesaid offences, taking note of the fact that it is the revision petitioner who took immediate steps in shifting the injured persons to the medical care including the Jayashree D/o Rudrappa Chavan, who was sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to the injuries, sentence of imprisonment may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount in reasonable manner and sought for allowing the revision petition.
14. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Devareddyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State, would support the impugned judgments. He would further contend that material evidence placed on record especially, the wound certificate of the injured persons who have also been examined before the trial court, some -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330 CRL.RP No. 100115 of 2016 of them have been examined before the court would make it clear that the negligent driving of the Tractor by the revision petitioner has resulted in the incident, where under all the 43 persons who have standing on the road got injured.
15. He would further contend that one among them namely Jayashree D/o Rudrappa Chavan sustained grievous injuries and she lost her life while shifting her to the Lokapur Government Hospital. Therefore, the contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioner that there was no negligence on the part of the revision petitioner cannot be countenanced in law.
16. Sri.Praveena Devareddayavar, would further contend that alternate submission of the revision petitioner cannot also be considered for simple reason that 43 persons are the victims in the incident and one among them having lost the life, the sentence ordered by the trial judge and confirmed by the first appellate court needs no -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330 CRL.RP No. 100115 of 2016 interference that too revisional jurisdiction and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto.
17. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration:
i. Whether revision petitioner makes out the case that the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity, or factual error, so as to seek interference from this Court?
ii. Whether the sentence needs modification?
iii. What order?
REGARDING POINT NO.1:
18. In the case on hand, the road traffic accident had occurred on Bagalkot-lokapur road on 15.08.2008 at about 7:00 p.m., involving the Tractor bearing registration No.KA-48/T-2183 is established. The revision petitioner being the driver of the said Tractor is also not in dispute.
19. According to prosecution, because of the rash and negligent driving, hind portion of the Trailer got in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330 CRL.RP No. 100115 of 2016 contact with the milestone and it got turtled. However, material evidence placed on record, especially the admission made by investigation officer would show that no such milestone was existing on the left side of the road.
20. Pertinently, it is to be noted that in a matter of this nature, accused is also expected to spell out his version about the incident. Under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, accused is also bound to place on record, the special knowledge which he possessed about the incident, which is in his exclusive knowledge to arrive at just decision in the matter.
21. Further non explanation to incriminating circumstances nor placing version of the accused in a given case of this nature, consequences in law has to follow.
22. View of this Court in this regard is fortified by the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan1. In 1 (2012) 9 SCC 284
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330 CRL.RP No. 100115 of 2016 the said judgment gainfully this Court culls out para 39 which reads as under:
"39. It is true that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but the provisions of Section 313 CrPC are not a mere formality or purposeless. They have a dual purpose to discharge, firstly, that the entire material parts of the incriminating evidence should be put to the accused in accordance with law and, secondly, to provide an opportunity to the accused to explain his conduct or his version of the case. To provide this opportunity to the accused is the mandatory duty of the court. If the accused deliberately fails to avail this opportunity, then the consequences in law have to follow, particularly when it would be expected of the accused in the normal course of conduct to disclose certain facts which may be within his personal knowledge and have a bearing on the case."
23. Thus, from the totality of the material evidence especially the testimony of the injured witnesses and other attendant facts and circumstances of the case including I.M.V report which shows that there was no mechanical defect in the offending Tractor, the conviction of the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330 CRL.RP No. 100115 of 2016 revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) IPC, needs no interference in the revisional jurisdiction.
24. In view of the forgoing discussion, the point No.1 is answered in the negative.
REGARDING POINT NO.2:
25. One factor which has been missed the notice of the trial court as well as the first appellate Court is the conduct of the accused soon after the incident. In a matter of this nature, usually, the driver who is responsible for the road traffic accident would run way from the spot without attending the injured pr intimating the incident to the Police.
26. In the case of hand, the revision petitioner noticing that the incident has occurred resulting in several persons being injured, stood on the spot and lent his helping hand in shifting the injured persons, especially
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330 CRL.RP No. 100115 of 2016 Jayashree D/o Rudrappa Chavan who had been sustained grievous injuries.
27. No doubt because of the grievous hurt that has caused to the Jayashree D/o Rudrappa Chavan, she succumbed to the injuries. Said conduct of the accused in shifting the injured to the hospital and not running way from the spot and escaping from rigors of law would be a factor which needs to be taken into consideration while passing the appropriate and adequate sentence in the case on hand.
28. Since this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by both the courts while passing the sentence, instead of remitting the matter to the trial court at this distance of time, only for purpose of passing an appropriate sentence by rehearing the parties would result in futile exercise.
29. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that in a matter of this nature, especially taking note of the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330 CRL.RP No. 100115 of 2016 galloping trend of the road traffic accident resulting in loss of precious human life, the sentence that should be granted in a given case of this nature should not only be adequate but should also act as deterrent.
30. This Court has taken notice principles of law enunciated in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi2 in this regard.
31. Thus, from totality of the circumstance especially the peculiar facts and circumstances that exist in the case on hand, while passing the appropriate and adequate sentence in the case on hand, the conduct of the revision petitioner cannot be lost sight.
32. Therefore, if the sentence ordered by the trial magistrate and confirmed by the first appellate Court is reduced from 1 year to 6 months by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- which is payable as compensation to the dependents of Jayashree D/o 2 (2015) 5 SCC 182
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330 CRL.RP No. 100115 of 2016 Rudrappa Chavan would meet the ends of justice in the case on hand. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative.
REGARDING POINT NO.3:
33. In view of the findings of this Court on points No.1 and 2 as above, the following order is passed.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) IPC, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC is reduced from 1 year to 6 months by enhancing the fine of Rs.25,000/- payable on or before 30.03.2025.
(iii) Failure to make the enhanced payment on or before 30.03.2025 would result in restoration of the jail sentence ordered by
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330 CRL.RP No. 100115 of 2016 the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
(iv) Entire enhanced the fine amount,
Rs.25,000/- is ordered to be paid as
compensation to the dependents of
Jayashree D/o Rudrappa Chavan under due identification.
(v) Office to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant.
It is made clear that since the sentence ordered for the offence punishable under Sections 273, 338, 337 of the IPC is to run concurrently, the modified sentence shall also run concurrently.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 39