Karnataka High Court
Mahantesh S/O Gurualingappa Nandyal @ ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4769
CRL.RP No. 200046 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200046 OF 2021
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. MAHANTESH
S/O GURUALINGAPPA NANDYAL @ VIJAYAPUR,
AGE:24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREMASALI, TQ. INDI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
2. GURUALINGAPPA S/O RAVUTAPPA NANDYAL
AGE:55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREMASALI, TQ. INDI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
Digitally signed ...PETITIONERS
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR (BY SRI P. S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER No.1;
Location: HIGH SRI ANNARAYA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.2)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-584 106.
(THROUGH INDI P.S.)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4769
CRL.RP No. 200046 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.08.2020 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIJAYAPURA IN CRL.ANO.23/2018 AND
FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 10.04.2018
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
INDI IN C.C.NO.165/2016 SO FOR AS ACCUSED NO.1 IS
CONCERNED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
279, 304(A) OF IPC AND SEC. 187, 181 OF IMV ACT AND SO
FOR AS ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S 196 AND 180 OF IMV ACT AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONERS.
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 revision petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.165/2016, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Indi (for short 'Trial Court'), are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.04.2018, convicting petitioner No.1/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 181 and 187 of the Indian -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4769 CRL.RP No. 200046 of 2021 HC-KAR Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M.V.Act') and sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 181 of M.V.Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 187 of M.V.Act with default sentences. Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 196 of M.V.Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 180 of M.V.Act with default sentences, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.23/2018 vide judgment dated 17.08.2020, on the file of the learned Principal -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4769 CRL.RP No. 200046 of 2021 HC-KAR Sessions Judge, Vijayapur (for short 'First Appellate Court').
2. The facts of the case in brief are that, the younger brother of the deceased filed the first information with Indi police against accused Nos.1 and 2, contending that, on 29.08.2015 at about 8:15 a.m., the driver of the tractor bearing registration No.KA-28/TA-4375 and trailer bearing registration No.KA-28/TA-4376, drove the same in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and hit the deceased. As a result of which, he died by sustaining fatal injuries. Accused No.1 being the driver and accused No.2 being the owner of the tractor- trailer have never informed this fact to the nearest police station nor shifted the injured to the hospital. It is also stated that accused No.1 was not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and accused No.2 had allowed such unauthorized person to drive the tractor-trailer. On the basis of the first information, investigation was -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4769 CRL.RP No. 200046 of 2021 HC-KAR undertaken and charge sheet came to be filed for the above said offences.
3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused who have appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got mark Exs.P1 to P5 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminatory materials available on record but have not led any evidence in support of their defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the above said offences and sentenced them as stated above. However, the Trial Court held that since the offence under Section 279 of IPC merges in Section 304A of IPC, it sentenced accused No.1 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for larger offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC with fine.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4769 CRL.RP No. 200046 of 2021 HC-KAR
4. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.23/2018. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record, dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, accused are before this Court.
5. Heard Sri Annaraya M. Patil, learned counsel for petitioner No.1, Sri P.S.Patil, learned counsel for petitioner No.2 and Sri. Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the materials available on record.
6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned order is liable to be quashed invoking the power under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4769 CRL.RP No. 200046 of 2021 HC-KAR My answer to the above point is 'partly in the affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
7. In order to prove its contention, the prosecution examined the informant, who is the brother of the deceased as PW.1. Even though he is not an eyewitness, he stated about the facts regarding death of his brother as a result of road traffic accident caused by accused No.1. PW.2 and PW.3 are the eyewitnesses to the incident and they have fully supported the case of the prosecution. Both these witnesses where subjected to cross- examination by the learned counsel for the accused, but nothing has been elicited from them to disbelieve their version. PW.4 is the witness to spot mahazar, who has also supported the case of the prosecution. PW.2 and PW.3 being the eyewitnesses have identified accused No.1 as the driver of the tractor-trailer at the time of commission of the offence.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4769 CRL.RP No. 200046 of 2021 HC-KAR
8. It is pertinent to note that PW.2 and PW.3 have stated that they were in the tractor-trailer at the time of the incident and the same was driven by accused No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, which resulted in the accident. The accused have not taken any specific defence except suggesting that the deceased had fallen under the influence of liquor and died, but the said defence was also not probablised by leading any evidence. The postmortem report of the deceased vide Ex.P5 does not support the defence taken by the accused. But on the other hand, it shows that he has sustained depressed fracture of skull i.e., on occipital region and the cause of death was due to heavy blood loss caused by acute respiratory failure, as a result of road traffic accident. From all these materials on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and under Sections 187 and 187 of the M.V.Act beyond reasonable doubt. In view of proof of -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4769 CRL.RP No. 200046 of 2021 HC-KAR commission of the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, the lesser offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC merges with the same.
9. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused No.2 is the owner of the tractor-trailer and he permitted accused No.1 to drive the vehicle without valid permit. There is no serious dispute about these facts, which are stated by PW.1. The accused have not produced the licence nor led any evidence to deny the allegations made against them. Thereby, the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and under Sections 187 and 187 of the M.V.Act and accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 196 and 180 of M.V.Act. The prosecution has also contended that accused No.1 being the driver of the offending vehicle, had never bothered to shift the injured to the nearest hospital nor informed this fact to the nearest police station. There is no contra evidence to the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4769 CRL.RP No. 200046 of 2021 HC-KAR said contention raised by the prosecution. Thereby the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the above said offences beyond reasonable doubt.
10. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The Trial Court has taken into consideration all the materials on record and arrived at the right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against accused Nos.1 and 2.
11. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner No.1/accused No.1 contended that accused No.1 was in custody for a period of 45 days during trial, he is the sole bread earner, who is maintaining his family. Therefore, seeks to show leniency in sentencing him.
12. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the order of sentence for the offence punishable under
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4769 CRL.RP No. 200046 of 2021 HC-KAR Section 304A of IPC as against accused No.1 could be modified. Accordingly, I answer the above point 'partly in the affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal revision is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment of conviction passed in C.C.No.165/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Indi dated 10.04.2018 in respect of petitioner No.1/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and under Section 187 and 181 of M.V.Act is hereby confirmed.
iii) However, the order of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC against petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is modified as under:
(a) He is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 45 days and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4769 CRL.RP No. 200046 of 2021 HC-KAR
(b) The order of sentence in respect of accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 181 and 187 of M.V.Act is hereby confirmed.
iv) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court in respect of petitioner No.2/accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 196 and 180 of M.V.Act is herby confirmed.
Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records for information and for necessary action i.e., for issuance of conviction warrant, if not already issued.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE SRT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33 CT:PK