Karnataka High Court
Bheemannagouda Biradar vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 July, 2025
Author: V. Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200058/2020
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHRI BHEEMANNAGOUDA BIRADAR,
S/O SHIVALINGAPPA BIRADAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC:DRIVER,
R/O. SANJEEVA NAGAR CROSS,
KEMBAVI, TQ. SHORAPUR,
Digitally signed DIST. YADGIRI-585216
by SUMITRA ...PETITIONER
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH (BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE S.H.O. KEMBHAVI P.S.,
REP BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585102
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 18.09.2020 PASSED BY THE DIST.
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIRI, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.29/2019 THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 17.08.2019 PASSED BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHORAPUR, IN
C.C.NO.19/2019 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHALBE UNDER
SECTIONS 279, 337 AND 304A OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard Sri Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
2. The revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.19/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Shorapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020 HC-KAR IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 304A of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-; for the offence under Section 337 of IPC, one month simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-; and for the offence under Section 279 of IPC a fine of Rs.1000/- and one month imprisonment was granted by the learned Trial Judge.
3. Validity of said order was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A. No.29/2019 and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 18.09.2020 dismissed the appeal of the accused.
4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision on following grounds:
The impugned judgments and orders of the both the courts below are illegal, arbitrary and perverse. Therefore the same calls for -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020 HC-KAR interference of this Hon'ble court to pass orders by setting aside same.
That, the both the courts below have failed to appreciate material evidence on record in correct prospective. Therefore, the orders of the court below are liable to be set aside.
That, the prosecution has completely failed to establish the negligent act of the accused, there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner accused was driving the car rashly and negligently so as to cause endanger to the human lives. Absolutely prosecution has failed to prove high speed of the car at the time of accident. Therefore, in the absence of a wanton and negligent act on the part of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the prosecution had made out a case for conviction.
That, the courts below have committed serious error of law in appreciating the evidence of the PW1,PW2,PW3,PW4 & PW7,PW8 who claimed to be the eye witness to the incident. The close reading of the entire cross examination of the above PW's it clearly goes to show that no one have witnessed the incident and they are all hearsay witnesses.-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020 HC-KAR Both the courts have also ignored major contradictions in the evidence of the above PW's with regard to the manner of accident. Therefore the prosecution has failed to discharge initial burden on it, as such the accused under the principle of benefit of doubt is liable to be acquitted. Very contradictions in the statements of PW's given give at the time of lodging complaint and a statement under section 161 of CRPC before the police and before the court while they were examining as witnesses are totally inconsistent with each other and in all probability the material produced before the trial court is not suffice to hold the petitioner/accused as guilty of the charges levied. Hence the same requires indulgence of this Hon'ble court to set aside the impugned orders.
That the both the courts have failed to appreciate the fact that the parents of the both the children have left the children on the road without keeping any observation on them. Therefore the parents of the children have contributed to the accident.
That there are omissions, admissions and major contradictions in the evidence of -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020 HC-KAR prosecution witnesses which are completely ignored by the both the courts below.
That in so far as quantum of sentence is concerned, looking to the manner in which the accident has occurred, imposition of maximum sentence of six months is higher side. That this Hon'ble court in Crl. A. No.564/1999 wherein this Court imposed sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- only for the offence under Section 304-A IPC on the ground that about six years the Trail Court has not disposed of the case and the accused was attending the Trial Court about 72 to 75 hearing dates. In another decision in Crl. A. No. 512/1994 this Court also imposed fine of Rs.5, 000/- for the offence under Section 304- A IPC on the ground that the case was disposed of about eight years after the incident. In Crl. A. No. 293/1991 also this Court imposed sentence to pay fine of Rs.2, 500/- while setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court had imposed fine of Rs.250/- only for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. In Criminal Revision Petition No.8/2004 this Court also imposed fine of Rs.4,000/- only for the offence under Section 304-A IPC on the ground that the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020 HC-KAR accident in that case had taken place in the year 1990 and the Revision Petition is disposed of after 14 years the Revision Petition came up for hearing. Hence the sentence imposed by the courts are to be modified.
In A.P. Raju Vs. State of Orissa (1995 SCC (Cri) 675) the Supreme Court held, in the circumstances, the appellant directed to be released under Section 360 Cr.P.C. on probation of good conduct, be of good behaviour and keep peace for a period of one year on the ground that the accident took place about 15 years ago and the appellant was remaining on bail for the last more than 8 years.
In AITHA CHANDER RAO V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 1981 SCC(Crl) 637 the Supreme Court extended the benefit of the Act to the accused in that case.
There is no law which lays down that the provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable to the case of an accused convicted for an offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. Section 4 of the Act applies to all the offences except the offences punishable with -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020 HC-KAR imprisonment for life or death. The offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. is punishable in maximum with 2 years imprisonment or fine. Therefore, the provisions of the Act can be made applicable even to a person who is convicted of an offence punishable under Section 304-A 1.P.C. Whether the benefit of the Act should be given to an accused convicted of the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case reported in Aitha Chander Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1981 SCC(Crl) 637 the benefit of the Act was given to the accused in that case as there was finding that there was some amount of contributory negligence on the part of the victim and the peculiar circumstances of the case.
5. Sri Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the region petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused, hence, he sought for allowing the revision petition. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020 HC-KAR
6. He would also contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, since the deceased was child, which came on the road all of a sudden, by ordering the suitable compensation, sentence of imprisonment may be set aside.
7. Per contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the revision petition.
8. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the parties, this Court perused material available on record meticulously.
9. On such perusal of the records, it is crystal clear that the charge-sheet materials revealed that accused being the driver of the car bearing No.KA-33/M- 1855, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from Kembhavi roadside and dashed against Devendrappa and Tejaswini, who were playing in front of their house.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020 HC-KAR
10. Devendrappa sustained grievous injuries, whereas, Tejaswini sustained simple injuries on the forehead. Devendrappa was being shifted in the car of the accused himself for the hospital at Kembhavi and thereafter, to Shahapur. Enroute near Chamnal, Devendrappa breathed his last and as such, the dead body was brought to the village.
11. Based on the complaint lodged by the father of the deceased, police registered the case for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC, thoroughly investigated matter and filed charge-sheet.
12. Presence of accused was secured and charges were framed. Accused not pleaded guilty therefore, trial was held.
13. In order to bring home the gift of the accused, in all 12 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 12 and as many as 10 documents have been placed on record, which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P10, comprising
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020 HC-KAR of complaint, spot mahazar, seizure mahazar, inquest mahazar, post mortem report, etc.
14. On conclusion of recording of evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein accused has denied the incriminating materials, but failed to offer any explanation whatsoever to the incriminating materials found in the case of the prosecution nor placed his version on record so as to appreciate the stand taken by the accused, which was put forward to prosecution witnesses in the cross- examination.
15. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and convicted the accused, disbelieving the alternate theory put forward by the accused that all of a sudden the deceased came on road and whereby the accident has occurred and convicted the accused.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020 HC-KAR
16. On re-consideration of evidence, it is seen that in the cross-examination of PW1, it has been elicited that he is not an eyewitness to the incident. Admittedly, from the complaint itself, it is found that somebody informed the complainant about the incident and therefore he rushed to his house.
17. PW2 is the uncle of the deceased. He deposed that at about 9.30 or 10.00 a.m., Devendrappa and his daughter Tejaswini were playing in the front yard of the house. At that juncture, accused being the driver of the Indica Car bearing No. KA-33/M-1855, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the children, who were playing in the front yard. Tejaswini sustained blood injury on the forehead, whereas, Devendrappa sustained grievous injuries and enroute to the Shorapur Hospital after taking the first aid in Kembhavi Hospital Devendrappa lost his life.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020 HC-KAR
18. In his cross-examination, it has been elicited that on hearing the hue and cry, the inmates of the house came there and they intimated about the accident and knowing the grievous injuries sustained by Devendrappa, accused voluntarily took the injured in his car.
19. In the examination-in-chief of PW6-Doctor, by mistake instead of mentioning the name of Devendrappa, the Doctor has mentioned the name of the injured Tejaswini. However, he was not cross-examined by accused. However, witness was recalled and the discrepancy is rectified by conducting further examination- in-chief.
20. Shankramma being the mother of the deceased supported the case of the prosecution by stating that her son Devendrappa and her niece Tejaswini were playing in the front yard of the house and at that juncture accused being the driver of car dashed against them, whereby,
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020 HC-KAR Devendrappa sustained grievous injuries and Tejaswini sustained minor injuries.
21. In her cross-examination she has specifically answered that she is an eyewitness to the incident and after hearing the loud sound she came out of the house and saw the incident. She denied the suggestion that to lay a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, she has deposed falsely.
22. It was also suggested to her that the children themselves came on the road while playing and incident has occurred. The said suggestion was denied by her.
23. She admits however that accused took the injured in his car to the hospital. The above, evidence on record is sought to be re-appreciated by the counsel for the revision petitioner.
24. Having bestowed best attention to the material evidence placed on record, it is pertinent to note that the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020 HC-KAR alternate theory put forward on behalf of the accused that because of the young age of the children, they themselves came under the car which was moving in normal speed on the road is not probablized by atleast placing plausible evidence on record.
25. Further, accused being the driver of the offending car, failed to explain these aspects of the matter at the time of recording the accused statement.
26. Prosecution is successful in placing the necessary material evidence, whereby, negligence of the revision petitioner is established.
27. Further, accused has gone to the extent of denying the question that was put to him in the 313 statement that he shifted the injured in his own car and Devendrappa lost his life near Chaminal Village when he was shifted from Kembhavi Hospital to Shahapur Hospital.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020 HC-KAR
28. Taking note of these aspects of the matter when there is no plausible proof placed on record to establish the alternate theory and accused having failed to explain the incriminatory circumstances or at least placed his version on record, the order of conviction recorded by Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference by this Court, that too in the revisional jurisdiction.
29. View of this Court in this regard is supported by the principles of law enunciated by Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur vs State Of Rajasthan reported in (2012)9 SCC 284. Accordingly, the order of conviction needs to be maintained.
30. Having said thus, this Court bestowed its attention to the sentence portion. The learned Trial Magistrate taking note of the fact that accused has shifted the injured in his own car for the immediate medical
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020 HC-KAR treatment, has only granted six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A IPC.
31. Taking note of the principles of law enunciated in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SAURABH BAKSHI reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182, this Court does not find any reasons or mitigating circumstances to further reduce the sentence. Accordingly, the order of sentence needs to be maintained.
32. In view of the foregoing discussions, the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal revision petition is meritless and it is hereby dismissed.
ii) The revision petitioner is granted time till 31.07.2025 for surrendering before the Trial Court for serving the remaining part of the sentence.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020 HC-KAR
iii) Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records along with copy of this order forthwith.
Sd/-
(V. SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57 CT:PK