Karnataka High Court
Noorahamad S/O Davalsab Sikandar vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4892
CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100176 OF 2018
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
NOORAHAMAD S/O. DAVALSAB SIKANDAR,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC. KSRTC DRIVER,
R/O. HULYAL, TQ. JAMAKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH IN BILAGI P.S.,
TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOTE.
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN ...RESPONDENT
RUDRAYYA (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
KALMATH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
KARNATAKA
SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C. 1973, SEEKING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
30.06.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16/2014 AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.02.2014 PASSED BY THE CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, BILAGI AT BILAGI IN C.C. NO.268/2011 FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 AND 338 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4892
CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Prashant S. Kadadevar, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.
2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.268/2011 confirmed in Crl.A.No.16/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC with default sentence, is the revision petitioner.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are as under:
4. In a road traffic accident occurred on 12.06.2011 at about 9.45 a.m. on Galagali- Jamakhandi public road, involving a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-01/F-7696, one Shivavva W/o. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4892 CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2018 Sidaraya Madar suffered a grievous injury i.e., fracture of right hand radius. Accused being the driver of the bus, stood for the trial and he was convicted after due trial.
5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court re-appreciated the material on record and upheld the order of conviction and sentence.
6. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.
7. Sri Prashant S. Kadadevar, learned counsel for revision petitioner contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus that it is the injured who came suddenly on the road. Therefore, the incident has occurred which was beyond human control which has not been properly appreciated by both the Courts and sought for allowing the revision petition. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4892 CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2018
8. Alternatively, Sri Prashant S. Kadadevar, would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, since there is no minimum punishment of imprisonment prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC, this Court may modify the sentence by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. Moreso, having regard to the fact that the injured would have received the compensation before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal and sought for allowing the revision petition in part.
9. Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent supports the impugned judgments.
10. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
11. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: -5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4892 CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2018
1) Whether the accused-revision petitioner makes out a case that though the Courts have wrongly appreciated the material facts resulting in impugned judgments suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus calls for interference in this revision petition?
2) Whether the sentence needs modification?
3) What order?
Regarding Point No.1:
12. In the case on hand, road traffic accident that occurrd on 12.06.2011 at about 9.45 a.m. on Galagali- Jamakhandi public road, involving a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-01/F-7696, stands established by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record.
13. To substantiate the defence of the accused that it is the pedestrian-injured who came on record suddenly and therefore, the accident has occurred beyond the human control is not probablised by placing any material on record. Accused himself did not say so while recording the accused statement.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4892 CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2018
14. No doubt, conductor of the bus is examined on behalf of the prosecution itself. But he has specifically stated that the speed of the bus was around 30 km speed.
15. Speed is not the only criteria for assessing the rashness. In every case, high speed or low speed would only be an additional factor while deciding rashness and negligence.
16. In the case on hand, to substantiate that the accused took all necessary steps in avoiding the accident is not forthcoming on record especially in the absence of break marks in the spot mahazar. Thus, recording of conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC does not require any interference by this Court in this revision having regard to the limited scope of the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4892 CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2018 Regarding point No.2:
17. In the case on hand, Shivavva, being the injured has suffered fracture of right hand radius. The same is depicted in Ex.P-9 wound certificate. Doctor has been examined to substantiate the injury. Since the accident is established and accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC, taking note of the fact that there is no minimum punishment prescribed under the IPC for the offence punishable under Section 338, this Court is of the considered opinion by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- by setting aside the imprisonment period of six months would meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative.
Regarding Point No.3:
18. In view of the finding of this Court on points No.1 and 2, as above, following order is passed. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4892 CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2018 ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC, sentence ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC, is hereby set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) payable on or before 30.04.2025, failing which, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Magistrate.
(iii) Entire enhanced fine amount of
Rs.25,000/- is ordered to be paid as
compensation to the complainant-
Shivavva W/o. Sidaraya Madar under due identification.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4892 CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2018 Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this order for issuing the modified conviction order.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 45