Karnataka High Court
Ram Asishsingh vs State By Channarayapatna on 4 March, 2026
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:13452
CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2017
HC-KAR
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.1185 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
RAM ASISHSINGH
S/O PADRATH SINGH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NIDIA VILLAGE,
ARJIRABAD DISTRICT
JHARKAND STATE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SWAROOP T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY CHANNARAYAPATNA
RURAL POLICE STATION
CHANARAYAPATNA
HASSAN DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
Digitally SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
signed by R HIGH COURT BUILDING,
MANJUNATHA
BANGALORE -560 001.
Location:
HIGH COURT ...RESPONDENT
OF (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
KARNATAKA
PLEADER)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 26.10.2017 IN
CRL.A.NO.154/2017 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN AND JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION DATED 31.08.2017 IN C.C.No.792/2013 BY THE
HON'BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS, CHANNARAYAPATNA ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:13452
CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2017
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Swaroop T., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction Convicted for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code in CC No.792/2013, which was modified with regard to sentence in Criminal Appeal No.154/2017 is the Revision petitioner.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are at most necessary for disposal of the present revision petitioner as under:
3.1. Channarayapatna Rural Police filed a charge sheet against the revision petitioner in respect of a road traffic accident occurred on 18.10.2012 at about 01.15 p.m., when deceased and his father were changing the spare wheel of their car bearing registration No.K.A.03/MC-1005 involving a crane having a registration No.K.A.13/M-8835.-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:13452 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2017 HC-KAR 3.2. When P.W.2 and deceased were in the process of changing the spare wheel, driver of the crane by name, Ram Asis Singh (Revision petitioner), said to have driven the said crane in a rash and negligent manner, whereby the crane ran over the son of P.W.2 and body was dragged for about 50 meters. When the accused was trying to escape away from the scene of offence, public said to have apprehended him and handed him over to the police station. Police registered the case and filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.
4. The presence of the accused was secured and charges were framed. The accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined eleven witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and placed on record nine documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9.
6. Among the prosecution witnesses, P.W.2 is the father of the deceased and also injured in the incident. He has identified the accused before the Court. In the cross examination of the eyewitness and P.W.2, it is elicited that they -4- NC: 2026:KHC:13452 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2017 HC-KAR did not see the crane coming from the same direction as P.W.2 was indulged in changing the spare wheel. However, on that score the identity of the accused cannot be doubted. Therefore, Trial Magistrate convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced the accused to undergo one year simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC apart from ordering the jail sentence and fine in respect of other offences which were directed to run concurrently.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.154 of 2017.
8. 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, confirmed the order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, but exercised his discretionary appellate powers and reduced the sentence for the offence under Section 304A IPC from one year to six months and acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code. -5-
NC: 2026:KHC:13452 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2017 HC-KAR
9. Being further aggrieved by the same, revision petitioner/accused is before this Court.
10. Sri Swaroop T, learned counsel for the revision Petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that learned Trial Magistrate committed grave error in convicting the accused knowing fully well that accused was not the driver of the offending crane in question.
11. As admitted, there is variance in the material evidence placed on record by the prosecution, inasmuch as P.W.2 and others have stated that the accused was apprehended and handed over to Channarayapatna Rural Police on the same day of the incident, whereas Investigating Officer has specifically stated that accused surrendered before the Court on 30.10.2012. Therefore, petitioner was entitled for an order of full acquittal.
12. He would further contend that though learned Judge in the First Appellate Court appreciated these aspects of the matter, failed to acquit the accused in toto and has only acquitted the accused for offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 IPC and State has not preferred any appeal. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC:13452 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2017 HC-KAR When there is an acquittal of accused for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, there cannot be conviction independently for the offence punishable under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code and thus sought for allowing the revision.
13. Per contra, Sri Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgment.
14. He would further contend that merely on the ground that accused is acquitted by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code would not ipso facto make out a case for acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code and as much as the deceased being the son of P.W.2 having died on account of road traffic accident involving the crane in question of which the accused being the driver and his identity is established by P.W.2 identifying the accused before the Court and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
16. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that there was a road traffic accident involving a -7- NC: 2026:KHC:13452 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2017 HC-KAR car bearing registration No.K.A.03/MC-1005 and a crane bearing registration No.K.A.13/M-8835.
17. Admittedly, P.W.2 and his son (deceased) were in the process of changing the spare wheel to the car in which P.W.2 and deceased and other family members were travelling. The incident has occurred in the broad daylight at about 01.15 p.m. on the highway.
18. Account of the eyewitnesses would make it clear that after dashing against the son of P.W.2, the accused could not control the vehicle and the body was dragged about 50 meters from the place of incident.
19. It is borne out from the records that the accused tried to escape away from the scene of offence and at that juncture passersby in the road and villagers apprehended the accused and handed him over to the Channarayapatna Rural Police.
20. However, in the evidence of Investigation Officer there is a categorical statement that accused voluntarily surrendered on 30.10.2012. Therefore on this score there is some variance. But, that itself would not be sufficient enough to doubt the fact that accused was not the driver of offending -8- NC: 2026:KHC:13452 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2017 HC-KAR crane inasmuch as P.W.11 in examination chief has admitted that accused was the driver of the offending crane. However, in the further examination-in-chief and cross-examination he turned hostile.
21. Further, P.W.2 who is also injured in the incident has identified the accused before the Court.
22. Very fact of dragging the body to a distance of 50 meters from the place of incident itself would be sufficient enough to infer the rash and negligent driving of the accused, that too on the highway especially when he was driving a crane which is classified as heavy vehicle and speed limit for such vehicles is altogether different from the speed limit prescribed for the other vehicles.
23. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned judge in the First Appellate Court modified the conviction order and sentenced by re-appreciating the material evidence on record.
24. First, for the death of the son of P.W.2, learned judge in the First Appellate Court has scaled down the jail sentence from one year to six months which in the considered opinion of this Court is in conformity with the principles of law -9- NC: 2026:KHC:13452 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2017 HC-KAR enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB vs SAURABH BAKSHI, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182 wherein Their Lordships in paragraph 14 and 15 have held as under:
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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13452 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2017 HC-KAR effective ways of keeping such drivers under 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 must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13452 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2017 HC-KAR 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)"
15. In B. Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka [(2008) 5 SCC 730 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 61] the appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The two-Judge Bench referred to Dalbir Singh [Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1208] and declined to interfere with the quantum of sentence. Be it stated, in the said case a passage from Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1979) 4 SCC 719 :
1980 SCC (Cri) 17] was quoted : (B. Nagabhushanam case [(2008) 5 SCC 730 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 61] , SCC p. 735, para 16) "16. ... '5. Nevertheless, sentencing must have a policy of correction. This driver, if he has to become a good driver, must have a better training in traffic laws and moral responsibility, with special reference to the potential injury to human life and limb.
Punishment in this area must, therefore, be accompanied by these components. The State, we hope, will attach a course for better driving
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13452 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2017 HC-KAR together with a livelier sense of responsibility, when the punishment is for driving offences. Maybe, the State may consider, in case of men with poor families, occasional parole and reformatory courses on appropriate application, without the rigour of the old rules which are subject to Government discretion.' (Rattan Singh case [(1979) 4 SCC 719 :
1980 SCC (Cri) 17] , SCC pp. 720-21, para 5)"
25. Accordingly, this court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the order passed by the First Appellate Court.
26. Hence, the following:
ORDER Revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55