Karnataka High Court
Satish S/O Channappa Hadapad vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5087
CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100003 OF 2018
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SATISH S/O. CHANNAPPA HADAPAD,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. DIRVER,
R/O. MANGUNDI VILLAGE, DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVASAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
THROUGH TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
Digitally
signed by V
N BADIGER
VN
BADIGER Date:
2025.03.29
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
11:41:13
+0530 SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE
THE CONVICTION DATED 27.05.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL.SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD IN CC NO.189/2016 AND WHICH
THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD MODIFYING AND
CONFIRMING THE SENTENCE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.61/2017
DATED 06.12.2017 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE
CHARGES LEVIED AGAINST HIM IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5087
CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Revision petitioner is accused No.1 who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.189/2016 dated 27.05.2017 and sentenced as under:
"Exercising the power U/s 255(2) of Cr. P.C. , I hereby convicted the Accused No.1 of the offences punishable U/s, 279, 304(A) of IPC and Sec.134(B) R/w Sec.187 and 3 R/w Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Accused No.1 is sentenced to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for three
months for the offence punishable U/s.279 of IPC.
The Accused No.1 is sentenced to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for the
offence punishable U/s.304(A) of IPC.
The Accused No.1 is sentenced to pay a fine
of Rs.500/ for the offence
punishable U/s 134(B) R/w Section 187 of the
Motor V3ehicles Act. In default of payment
of fine, he shall under go simple
imprisonment for 1 month.
The Accused No.1 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/ for the offence punishable U/s 3 R/w Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall under go simple imprisonment for 1 month.-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5087 CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2018 Exercising the power U/s 255(2) of Cr. P.C. , I hereby convicted the Accused No.2 of the offence punishable U/s 5 R/w Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Accused No.2 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ for the offence punishable U/s 5 R/w Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall under go simple imprisonment for 1 month."
2. Order of conviction was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.61/2017 which came to be dismissed by considered judgment dated 06.12.2017.
3. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:
A complaint came to be lodged with Traffic Police Station, Dharwad in respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on 25.12.2015 at about 12:30 p.m. near Sarvamangala Hospital, Dharwad. Accused No.1 being the driver of Tata Magic Vehicle bearing No.KA-18/A-6122 drove the same towards Managundi from Dharwad side in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied the break which resulted in one of the inmates of the said -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5087 CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2018 vehicle namely Basalingappa @ Basaningappa who was sitting next to the door, fell down from the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, he succumbed to injuries in KMC Hospital, Hubballi on 29.12.2015 at about 00.45 hours.
4. Police registered the case against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304A of IPC, Section 134(B) read with Section 187 and Section 3 read with Section of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. After due trial, accused No.1 was convicted and sentenced as referred to supra whereas the owner of the vehicle was acquitted.
6. State did not challenge the said acquittal of accused No.2 and it became final.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, revision petitioner has filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.61/2017.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5087 CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2018
8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and dismissed the appeal inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.38 to 40 as under:
"The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 730 (N.Nagabhushanam v/s State of Karnataka) has dealt with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed in the case of present nature. For better appreciation, it is just and proper to incorporate the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment.
"A. Penal Code, 1860- Ss. 304 -A and 279- Rash and negligent driving -Dead body of the deceased child found 2 feet away from the bus and 3 feet away from the pavement on the right side of the road- No mechanical failure-Appellantaccused admittedly did not err in judging- Spot mahazar revealed that bus was dragged for about 20 to 25 feet after brake was applied- Contents of mahazar not challenged- Post-mortem report and evidence of PW-1 (eyewitness) similar as regards several injuries PW-1's statement that the bus was driven at a high speed, held, credibleAnother witness ascribing a slow speed (i.e. 15- 20 km per hour), held, was rightly rejectedMaxims-Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) Applied B.Maxims- Res ipsa loquiture (the thing speaks for itself)- Held applicable in criminal cases-Penal Code, 1860-Ss. 304-A and 279-Rash and negligent driving State of A.P.v.C Uma Maheswara Rao, (2004) 4 SCC 399 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1276, applied Syad Akbar V State of Karnataka, (1980) 1 SCC 30:-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5087 CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2018 1980 SCC (Cri) 59, distinguished Raghubir Singh V. State of Haryana, (1974) k4 SCC 560 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 596, cited.
C. Penal Code, 1860-Ss. 304-A and 279-Rash and negligent driving-Sentence of imprisonment Rationale of punishment-Case law emphasizing deterrent effect of punishment on lax and inattentive drivers, relied upon-A seven years old child was killed due to rash and negligent driving- Simple imprisonment for six months plus one month and fine of Rs.1000 plus Rs.500, held, proper. Six months' simple imprisonment and a direction to the appellant to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 for commission of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC cannot be said to be shocking. 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. The driver 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.
Dalbir Singh v.State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1208 ; Ratan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 4 SCC 719: 1980 SCC (Cri) 17, relied on D. Constitution of India-Arts. 134 and 136 - Appeal against conviction-concurrent finding of fact by courts below regarding rash and negligent driving High Court in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction had discussed the matter in great detail-
No. reason to take a different view Reappreciation of evidence, on facts, held, not possible. " -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5087 CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2018
39. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court have categorically observed as under:-
"13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devasting consequences visiting the victims and their families criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act. 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 memo of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should to 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 leniently by the court. human being due to his callous driving of the vehicle he cannot escape from a jail sentence."
40. Therefore, driver must keep in 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. So, the principles stated in the aforesaid judgment can very be applied to the present facts of this case."
9. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused No.1 is before this Court, in this revision petition. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5087 CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2018
10. Sri.Shivasai M. Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that it is the negligence on the part of the deceased who did not sit properly and was leaning to the door of the vehicle resulting in the accident for which no negligence can be attributed to the revision petitioner for being the driver of the vehicle and did not have the vision as to how the injured was sitting in the vehicle and as such, conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC cannot be sustained as no negligence is there on part of the revision petitioner which is a sine qua non.
11. Per contra, Praveena Y. Devareddyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent supports the impugned judgments by contending that it is the duty of the revision petitioner being the driver of the vehicle to take necessary steps to see that all the passengers are safe while driving the vehicle.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5087 CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2018
12. Applying the break suddenly has resulted in the accident whereby Basalingappa @ Basaningappa fell down from the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries and ultimately, he succumbed to injuries four days later and therefore, conviction of the revision petitioner is just and proper and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
13. Having heard the arguments in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
14. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration:
1. Whether the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus, calls for interference?
2. Whether the sentence is excessive?
3. What order?
REG.POINT Nos.1 AND 2:
15. In the case on hand, road traffic accident that occurred on 25.12.2015 at about 12:30 p.m. near
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5087 CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2018 Sarvamangala Hospital, Dharwad involving the Tata Magic Vehicle bearing No.K-18/A-6122 is established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record.
16. Basalingappa @ Basaningappa being one of the inmates of the vehicle, fell down in the accident and sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi for treatment. However, despite best treatment, he lost his life at 00:45 hours on 29.12.2015.
17. Case came to be registered against the revision petitioner who was admittedly driving the said Tata Magic Vehicle.
18. After thorough trial, learned Trial Magistrate has convicted the revision petitioner believing the version of the prosecution witnesses including the eye witnesses who are the inmates of the same vehicle and noting that there was no explanation offered by the revision petitioner at the time of recording the accused statement.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5087 CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2018
19. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court reappreciated the material evidence on record and considered the appeal grounds and held that revision petitioner failed to establish that accident did not occur on account of his negligence and dismissed the appeal as referred to supra discussing in detail in paragraph Nos.38 to 40.
20. Having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction, this Court did reconsider the material on record in the light of the appeal grounds urged on behalf of the revision petitioner by learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
21. Even after such reconsideration, taking note of the fact that absolutely there is no explanation offered by the revision petitioner with regard to the incident in writing at the time of recording the accused statement and failed to place his version about the incident.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5087 CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2018
22. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2012 SC 2986, this Court is of the considered opinion that conviction order needs no interference.
23. In the case on hand, for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, learned Judge has imposed six months imprisonment. In view of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 192, sentence also needs no modification. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 is answered in negative. REG.POINT No.3:
24. In view of the findings of this Court in point Nos.1 and 2 as above, following:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5087 CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2018 ORDER i. Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed.
ii. Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court till 15.04.2025.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV/CT:PA/LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 35