Karnataka High Court
Sri Srinivas vs State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2026
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:17942
CRL.RP No. 885 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 885 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O SRI GOPALA
DRIVER
R/AT RIGHT SIDE OF HOSAMANE
4TH CROSS
BHADRAVATHI TOWN
SHIMOGA - 577 301
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANNARAYAPATNA RURAL POLICE
IN THE HIGH COURT REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSEUTOR
Digitally
signed by R BANGALORE - 560 001
MANJUNATHA ...RESPONDENT
Location: (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
HIGH COURT
OF THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
KARNATAKA
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 28.07.2017 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, SITTING AT
CHANNRAYAPATNA IN CRL.A.NO.29/2017 AT ANNEXURE-A
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:17942
CRL.RP No. 885 of 2017
HC-KAR
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHANNARAYAPATNA IN
C.C.NO.1522/2014 DATED 04.01.2017 AT ANNEXURE-B
CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR TEH OFFENCE P/U/S 279
AND 304(A) OF IPC AND TO SET AT LIBERTY THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Sri.Venkatesh R. Bhagat, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.1552/2014 which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.29/2017 is the revision petitioner.
3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
3.1. In respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on 27.02.2014 at about 8.30 p.m., when Ramesh was proceeding on the footpath on Arsikere to Channarayapatna Road, near Kurikavalu Gate, accused being the driver of the lorry bearing -3- NC: 2026:KHC:17942 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2017 HC-KAR No.KA-14/B-0948 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against said Ramesh whereby he succumbed on his part on account of the injuries sustained in the said road traffic accident.
3.2. Incident was reported to P.W.1 over telephone to the jurisdictional police and later on written complaint was obtained by the police in the hospital.
4. Police after registering the case, thoroughly investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.
5. On receipt of the charge sheet, presence of the accused was secured and plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.
6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined seven witnesses as P.W.1 to 7 among them P.W.1 is the complainant and owner of the lorry is P.W.5.-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:17942 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2017 HC-KAR
7. Complainant and P.W.2 have supported the case of the prosecution in toto and owner of the lorry specifically deposed before the Court that lorry was driven by the accused as on the date of incident and he has identified the signature on the indemnity bond.
8. P.W.3 is an independent witness who has also supported the case of the prosecution stating that at about 8.30 p.m. on 27.02.2014, near Kurikavalu gate, accident has occurred and lorry was stopped 20 meters away from the place of incident and accused ran away from the place of incident.
9. Detailed cross-examination of P.W.1, 3 and 5 did not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve their version about the incident.
10. On conclusion of recording of the evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances.
11. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties in detail and convicted the accused for -5- NC: 2026:KHC:17942 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2017 HC-KAR the aforesaid offences and imposed one year imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and three months imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC apart from imposing fine.
12. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.29/2017.
13. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the material on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused and confirmed the order of sentence.
14. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision petition.
15. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that P.W.1 is an implanted witness to the incident which has been established by thorough cross- examination as presence of P.W.1 at the place of incident is doubtful.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:17942 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2017 HC-KAR
16. He would further emphasize that P.W.1 being of the same village that of the deceased, is an interested person and therefore, his testimony is to be considered as interested testimony and sought for allowing the revision petition.
17. He would further contend that material evidence on record would not be sufficient enough to hold that it is the accused who has been responsible for the accidental death of Ramesh and thus sought for allowing the revision petition.
18. Alternatively, he would contend that in the event, this Court allowing the revision petition, by following the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hanumanthappa v. State of Karnataka in Crl.A.No.1194/2023 and Abdul Sattar v. State of Karnataka, Department of Home and Another in Review Petition (Crl.) No.66/2026 (Dairy No.45337/2025), requested the Court to impose reasonable amount as fine amount which can be paid as compensation to dependents of Ramesh and set aside the imprisonment of three months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and one year -7- NC: 2026:KHC:17942 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2017 HC-KAR imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and sought for allowing the revision petition to such extent.
19. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State opposes the bail grounds by contending that a valuable human life has been lost because of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the revision petitioner and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
20. He pointed out that P.W.1 and 3 are independent eye witnesses and only on the ground that P.W.1 is from the same village, his testimony cannot be doubted unless he nurtured enmity as against the accused to falsely implicate him in the incident.
21. He also emphasizes that sentence as ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference as no mitigating circumstances are placed on record as accused has ran away from the spot after the accident without even informing the incident to the jurisdictional police and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:17942 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2017 HC-KAR
22. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
23. On such perusal of the material on record, death of Ramesh on account of the accidental injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident occurred on 27.02.2014 at about 8.30 p.m. involving a lorry bearing No.KA-14/B-0948 is established by the prosecution by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record.
24. No doubt, on behalf of the accused, a feeble attempt is made that the deceased came on the road all of a sudden and therefore, lorry driver could not control the accident. But photographs placed on record along with the spot mahazar would make it clear that the dead body was found on the foot path and not on the road as in contended by accused.
25. Testimony of the eye witnesses in this regard is clear and categorical inasmuch as P.W.1 and 3 has specifically stated that they have seen rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the accused and dashing against Ramesh who was moving on the foot path.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:17942 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2017 HC-KAR
26. Admittedly, P.W.1 and 3 did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity against the revision petitioner to falsely implicate him in the incident. They are chance witnesses and therefore, their testimony cannot be doubted only on the ground that P.W.1 is of the same village that of the deceased.
27. Further, in a matter of this nature, after prosecution establishes its case by placing necessary evidence on record, incriminatory circumstances found in the prosecution evidence must be put to the accused and his explanation and his version about the incident is to be obtained.
28. In a criminal trial, recording of the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality. It serves dual purpose.
29. Firstly, incriminatory circumstance found in the prosecution case is to be put to the accused to seek his explanation.
30. Secondly, accused must place his version about the incident as he is part of the incident in a road traffic accident.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17942 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2017 HC-KAR
31. If the accused deliberately fails to make use of such an opportunity that was granted to him, necessary consequences in law have to be followed. Same has been followed by the learned Trial Magistrate which was reappreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court.
32. View of this Court, in this regard, is supported by the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 (9) SCC 284.
33. Therefore, order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction.
34. Having said so, the second limb of argument that has been canvassed with vehemence on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the sentence of one year imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC is on the higher side.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17942 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2017 HC-KAR
35. In that regard, two judgments have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as referred to supra.
36. Relevant portion of those judgments are extracted hereunder for ready reference:
i. Hanumanthappa v. State of Karnataka in Crl.A.No.1194/2023 "We have gone through the provisions of Section 304A IPC whereby the award of sentence is not mandatory. In the present case, appellant has paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/. However, considering the willingness of the family of the deceased, we reduce the sentence to the sentence already undergone and to the payment of compensation as recorded hereinabove."
ii. Abdul Sattar v. State of Karnataka,
Department of Home and Another in
Review Petition (Crl.) No.66/2026 (Dairy No.45337/2025)
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17942 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2017 HC-KAR "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the fact that a 13 years old boy had died in the accident due to negligence of the appellant. The provision of Section 304(A) does not mandatorily prescribe a sentence. Therefore, in lieu of the sentence required to be served by the appellant, if he makes a payment of fine of Rs.3,00,000/- in toto, the sentence may be commuted and the amount of fine, so deposited shall be used as compensation to the family of the deceased boy."
37. However, what is the appropriate sentence in a matter of this nature is no longer res integra. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182 has 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 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.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17942 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2017 HC-KAR
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 mental vigil is to
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17942 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2017 HC-KAR 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
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17942 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2017 HC-KAR 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 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)"
38. Taking note of the galloping trend of road traffic accident resulting in death of human beings, the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act is not made applicable for the accused person who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.
39. In other words, Courts are required to bestow their best attention while passing the appropriate sentence inasmuch as accused who negligently drives the motor vehicle results in
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17942 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2017 HC-KAR human death, must understand that jail sentence in such cases is a must which would act as deterrence.
40. Further, in the case on hand, accused was not in custody and no mitigating circumstances are placed on record. Pertinently, concept of blood money is alien to the Indian Criminal Jurisprudence.
41. Compensation for death of a human being is one aspect of the matter for which a separate forum is created wherein the dependents can approach the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and obtain necessary compensation.
42. However, payment of compensation would not ipso facto result in taking away the punishment prescribed under the penal statute under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. More so, if there is no mitigating circumstances.
43. Necessarily, conduct of the accused in such cases must be borne in mind while the Court embarks upon ordering compensation in lieu of the imprisonment.
44. Keeping the above principles in the background, when the material on record is appreciated, no mitigating
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17942 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2017 HC-KAR circumstances are pleaded nor placed on record before the learned Trial Magistrate by the accused.
45. On the contrary, oral testimony of P.W.3 would make it clear that lorry did not stop at the spot, it was stopped 20 meters away from the place of incident after running over the body of Ramesh. Thereafter, accused left the lorry and ran away from the spot without even informing the jurisdictional police.
46. Further, principles enunciated in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner are distinguishable on the facts inasmuch as in the case on hand, no imprisonment period has already been undergone by the revision petitioner.
47. Thus, revision petitioner does not deserve any lenience from this Court by exercising the revisional powers. However, one fact needs to be looked into in the matter which is ordering separate sentence of three months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17942 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2017 HC-KAR
48. By applying the Doctrine of Merger, no separate sentence could have been ordered for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC as it merges with the higher offence under Section 304A of IPC.
49. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex court which has practically surveyed all relevant decisions while passing appropriate sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the punishment is reduced from one year to six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, ends of justice would be met.
50. Accordingly, they are of no avail in accepting the prayer of the revision petitioner that entire imprisonment period needs to be set aside by directing the revision petitioner to pay enhanced fine amount.
51. Accordingly, following:
ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17942 CRL.RP No. 885 of 2017 HC-KAR ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, separate sentence of three months ordered for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC is hereby set aside.
iii. Insofar as imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC is concerned, same is reduced to six months.
iv. Revision petitioner is directed to surrender before the Trial Court for serving remaining part of the sentence on or before 30.04.2026.
Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67