Karnataka High Court
Rajendrakumar S/O Madhavrao Gorale vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5232
CRL.RP No. 200045 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200045 OF 2020
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
RAJENDRAKUMAR
S/O MADHAVRAO GORALE,
AGED: 36 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. SHIVANI VILLAGE, BHALKI TALUKA,
DIST. BIDAR - 586 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
RAMESH
MATHAPATI THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH THROUGH BHALKI RURAL POLICE STATION,
COURT OF TQ. BHALKI,
KARNATAKA
DIST. BIDAR-586 101.
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5232
CRL.RP No. 200045 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DATED 03.08.2020 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.19/2014, THEREBY, CONFIRMING AND UPHOLDING
THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 14.05.2014
PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BHALKI,
IN C.C. NO. 25/2011 CONVICTING PETITIONER/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279,
304(A), 337 AND 338 OF IPC AND ETC.E
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA) The petitioner being the accused in C.C. No.25/2011 on the file of the learned J.M.F.C., Bhalki, (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court') is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.05.2014 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentencing the accused to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 of IPC; to -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5232 CRL.RP No. 200045 of 2020 HC-KAR pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC; to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.7,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC with default sentences, while acquitting the accused under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'MV Act'). The same was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.19/2014 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar (for short 'First Appellate Court') vide judgment dated 03.08.2020.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner being Driver of the Maxicab bearing registration No.KA-04/7559, drove the same towards Bhalki in a rash and negligent manner at high speed on 22.10.2010 at 2.00 p.m., and dashed to a Mini Door (Tum-Tum) bearing registration No.KA-39/2408 and caused injuries to the inmates of the vehicle. The accident had resulted in death of four persons. Thereby, the accused committed the -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5232 CRL.RP No. 200045 of 2020 HC-KAR offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC read with Section 187 of M.V. Act.
3. The accused has appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 23, got marked Exs.P1 to P32 documents and identified M.O. 1 to 17 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all incriminating materials available on record, but has not led any evidence in support of his defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304A, 337, 338 of IPC. Accordingly, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, accused had preferred the appeal in Crl.A. No.19/2014. The First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of entire materials available on record, has dismissed the appeal by -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5232 CRL.RP No. 200045 of 2020 HC-KAR confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused-petitioner is before this Court.
5. Heard Sri Sanjay A. Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsels for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?"
7. My answer to the above point is 'Partly in the Affirmative' for the following:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5232 CRL.RP No. 200045 of 2020 HC-KAR REASONS
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner even though has raised several grounds in the revision petition, has fairly conceded that PWs.13 to 17 are the injured eyewitnesses, who have fully supported the case of the prosecution, and therefore, he restricted his arguments only to seek leniency in sentencing the accused.
9. The materials on record disclose that all the injured eyewitnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, I do not find any reason to disbelieve their version, which is supported by Wound Certificates, which are marked as Exs.P20 to 29. Since, the learned counsel for the petitioner is only seeking leniency in sentencing the accused, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
10. It is noticed that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have proceeded to convict the accused -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5232 CRL.RP No. 200045 of 2020 HC-KAR both for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. The offence under Section 279 of IPC being the minor offence, merges with the major offence under Section 304A of IPC, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurubasavaraj @ Bennishettappa vs. State of Karnataka1. In view of the same, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not liable for sentence for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. Such order of sentence is liable to be set aside.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle and he was aged 26 years at the time of the incident, which had occurred on 22.10.2010. Since, 15 long years have lapsed from the date of the incident, he prays for leniency while sentencing the accused. Even though, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for leniency in sentencing the accused, the fact remains that the accident in question had resulted in the death of four persons, who 1 (2012) 8 SCC 734 -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5232 CRL.RP No. 200045 of 2020 HC-KAR were the inmates of the vehicle, and it also resulted in injuries to several persons. Even though the petitioner is not entitled for any leniency on that count, taking into consideration the fact that the incident had occurred about 15 years back, I am of the opinion that some leniency may be shown in his favour.
12. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to pay fine for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. However, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.7,000/-. In default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Only for the sentence under Section 304A of IPC, some leniency may be shown in favour of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of sentence may be modified in the interest of justice.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5232 CRL.RP No. 200045 of 2020 HC-KAR
13. Accordingly, I answer the above point 'partly in the affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment of conviction dated
14.05.2014 passed in C.C. No.25/2011 on the file of the learned J.M.F.C., Bhalki, for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304A, 337, 338 of IPC, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.19/2014 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, vide judgment dated 03.08.2020, is hereby confirmed.
(iii) The order of sentence passed by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC, is also confirmed.
(iv) However, the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC is modified as under:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5232 CRL.RP No. 200045 of 2020 HC-KAR
a) The revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. In default to pay fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
b) The fine amount is to be deposited within three months from the date of this order.
(v) The order of sentence passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC is hereby set aside.
(vi) Fine amount, if any, deposited for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner on due identification.
Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this order for information and needful action.
Sd/-
(M.G. UMA) JUDGE SBS,MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 Ct:PK