Karnataka High Court
Maktumhussain S/O Gudusab Taralagatta vs The State By Cpi on 11 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641
CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100237 OF 2017
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MAKTUMHUSSAIN S/O. GUDUSAB TARALAGATTA,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
R/O. DEVAGIRI, TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M. H. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE BY CPI
HANAGAL POLICE STATION,
R/BY. S.P.P., KARNATAKA HIGH COURT,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
Digitally ...RESPONDENT
signed by V N
VN BADIGER (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
Date:
BADIGER 2025.03.20
12:39:23
+0530
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 (1) READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY HON'BLE PRL. SESSIONS
JUDGE, HAVERI IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2016 DATED 19.06.2017
AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PAPSSED BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HANGAL IN C.C.NO.
230 OF 2008 DATED 08.01.2016 BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION
PETITION BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 304(A) OF IPC
AND UNDER SECTIONS 134(A) (B) READ WITH SECTION 187 OF MV
ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641
CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2017
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Harshavardhan M. Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.M.H.patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveen Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent.
2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC no.230/2008 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 304A of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of IMV Act has been sentenced as under
which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.08/2016 is the revision petitioner:
SENTENCE IN CC No.230/2008
"Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 304A of IPC and Section 134(A)(B) R/w 187 of MV Act.
An accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.700/- for offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. In default of -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641 CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2017 payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days.
An accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.300/- for an offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 4 days.
An accused is sentenced to undergo S.I for one year for an offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 5 days.
An accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.100/- for an offence punishable under Section 134 (A) (B) read with 187 of I.M.V.Act. In default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 day."
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:
3.1. In respect of road traffic accident that occurred on 23.12.2007, Hangal Town Police registered a case against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
3.2. Complaint averments would reveal that on 23.12.2007 at about 2.00 p.m., accused being the driver of three wheeler goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA.25.B.1017 driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and when the vehicle reached near the Kotanahalli -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641 CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2017 cross towards Akki Alur road, vehicle toppled down as a result, complainant and three other persons who were travelling in the said goods vehicle, has sustained simple and grievous injuries. One of the injured person thereafter succumbed to the injury.
3.3. Therefore, after thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused person for the aforesaid offences.
4. Learned Trial Judge after taking cognizance conducted the trial and after due trial, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.8/2016.
6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence.-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641 CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2017
7. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision.
8. Sri.Harshavardhan M. Patil, learned counsel reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that incident is beyond the human control having regard to the sloppy road and on account of applying the break to avoid the dangerous event as suddenly there was a person who crossed the road. Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the revision petitioner which has been ignored by the learned Trial Judge and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court mechanically confirmed the order of conviction and sought for allowing the revision petition.
9. Alternatively, he contended that in the event, this Court upholding the order of conviction, sentence of imprisonment may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641 CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2017
10. Sri.Praveen Y. Devareddyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments by contending that admittedly, it is the negligence of the driver of the three wheeler vehicle resulted in accident.
11. He would further contend that without attending the injured or without intimating the police about the incident, accused ran away from the spot which will disentitle the accused to obtain any leniency from this Court and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto.
12. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
13. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration:
1. Whether the petitioner makes out a case that impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus, calls for interference?-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641 CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2017
2. Whether the sentence is excessive?
3. What order?
REG.POINT Nos.1 AND 2:
14. In the case on hand, death of one of the inmates of the three wheeler bearing No.KA.25.B.1070 is not in dispute in view of the post-mortem report marked at Ex.P.10. Wound certificates of Mallanagouda, Riyaz Ahmed and Rajesad Moulasab, issued by the Doctor who is examined as P.W.6 would make it clear that other inmates have also sustained injuries.
15. Further, injured passengers were also examined before the Court as P.W.2 to 4. It is to be borne in mind that testimony of the injured witnesses should be kept on higher pedestal and their testimony would be sufficient in adjudging the guilt of the accused. More so, when they did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity against the accused to falsely implicate him. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641 CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2017
16. Crowing all these matters, there was no explanation offered by the accused with regard to the incident while recording the accused statement.
17. Taking note of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Ravi Kapoor v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2012 SC 2986, in the absence of any explanation offered by the accused, learned Trial Judge recorded an order of conviction holding that accused is responsible for the accidental death of Shivabasappa in the road traffic accident involving three wheeler vehicle bearing No.KA.25.B.1070 is just and proper.
18. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court rightly reappreicated the material evidence while upholding the order of conviction.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641 CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2017
19. Therefore, having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction, this court cannot record different finding than that of the Courts below while upholding the order of conviction.
20. However, taking note of the fact that Shivabasappa had travelled in a three wheeler, which is admittedly a goods vehicle, this Court is of the considered opinion that imposing one year imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC needs to be reduced to six months taking note 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
182.
21. In view of the foregoing discussions, point No.1 is answered in negative and 2 in partly affirmative. REG.POINT No.3:
22. In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 as above, following:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641 CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2017 ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner, sentence ordered by the learned Trial Judge is reduced from one year to six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/-.
iii. Time is granted to pay the enhanced fine amount till 15.04.2025 failing which the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment as ordered by the learned Trial Judge.
iv. Out of the fine amount recovered, enhanced fine amount of Rs.25,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the dependants of Shivabasappa under due identification.
Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 41