Karnataka High Court
Santosh S/O Hanumantappa Kolur vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 August, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10365
CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100237 OF 2025
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SANTOSH S/O HANUMANTAPPA KOLUR,
AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. KSRTC BUS DRIVER,
R/O. THANGADAGI, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST. BIJAPUR-586 212.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND MALASHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
THROUGH ANKOLA P.S., TQ. ANKOLA,
DIST. KARWAR (UK)-581 314.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 438 R/W 442
RAKESH HARIHAR
S Location: HIGH
COURT OF
OF BNSS), PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE
HARIHAR KARNATAKA SENTENCE AND CONVICTION JUDGMENT DATED 31/01/2025
DHARWAD
BENCH
PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.20/2014 BY THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR AND
IMPUGNED ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE JMFC AT
ANKOLA IN C.C. NO.283/2010 DATED 06/01/2014 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR AN
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279, 304-A OF IPC, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10365
CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. Accused is before this Court in this revision petition
filed under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C, R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C,
assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
passed by the Court of JMFC, Ankola in C.C.No.283/2010 dated
06.01.2014 which is confirmed in Crl.A.No.20/2014 by the
Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Uttarakannada,
Karawar vide judgment and order dated 31.01.2025.
2. The petitioner was tried before the Court of JMFC,
Ankola in C.C.No.283/2010 for the offences punishable under
Sections 279 & 304A of IPC and in the said case he was
convicted for the charge sheet offences and was sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and
pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month and the said judgment
and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court
was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner in
Crl.A.No.20/2014. It is under these circumstances, he is before
this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10365
HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
dispute between the petitioner and legal representatives of
deceased has been amicably settled and the legal
representatives of deceased have come forward to receive
compensation of Rs.1 lakh from the petitioner. He submits that
in view of aforesaid, the judgment and order of conviction
passed against the petitioner may be set aside. He submits that
compensation of Rs.1lakh now paid is over and above the
compensation that legal representatives of deceased have
received in motor vehicle case that was filed separately before
the jurisdictional Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal.
4. Learned HCGP on instruction submits that legal
representatives of the deceased driver of Lancer car bearing
registration No.KA-25-Z-3333 are before this Court and they
have voluntarily agreed to receive the compensation amount
from the petitioner.
5. The submission made on both sides is placed on
record.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10365
HC-KAR
6. In the road traffic accident that had taken place on
12.02.2010 on Karwar-Ballari National Highway, the lorry
bearing registration No.KA-28-A-3212, which was driven by the
petitioner had dashed against the Lancer car bearing
registration No.KA-25-Z-3333, which was driven by Nagesh
Rudrappa Badiger and in the said accident Nagesh and three
other inmates of the said car namely Smt. Sujatha W/o
Balakrishna Shetty, Sulakshana W/o Bhujanga Shetty and Kum.
Rishita D/o Bhujanga Shetty had died.
7. Sri Bhujanga M Shetty, who is legal representative
representing the aforesaid three other deceased in the present
case, has filed an affidavit before this Court that compensation
that is agreed to be paid by the petitioner can be handed over
to legal representatives of the deceased driver Nagesh
Rudrappa Badiger and he and his family members have no
objection for the same.
8. The affidavit filed by the Bhujanga M Shetty is
taken on record. In paragraph Nos.3 to 5 of the said affidavit it
is stated as follows:-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10365
HC-KAR
"3. I state that in the said accident along with my
family members my driver namely Nagesh S/o:
Rudrappa Badiger was also died. Now I along with
legal heirs of the deceased car driver Nagesh and
petitioner together we are ready and agreed to settle
the matter amicably by intervention of elders.
Therefore in view this of settlement, I am not claiming
any kind of amount by way of compensation or fine
from the petitioner. That whichever amount is ready
to pay by the petitioner, let the petitioner to pay the
entire amount to the deceased Nagesh family and I
am completely agree with the same and I have no any
objection to hand over the said compensation and to
pay the compensation amount to the deceased
Nagesh family. This affidavit I am swearing with my
consent, free will and wish and without anybody's
influence. Hence I am swearing this affidavit.
4. I state that, as per the terms and conditions of
compromise, the petitioner is agreed to pay the
amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-(One Lakhs Rupees) as
compensation to all the legal heirs of the deceased
family members. I further state that, in that I along
with legal heirs of the deceased driver Nagesh family,
agreed with to receive the said compensation amount
with great satisfaction. As I stated above I have no
objection and I am freely agreed to handover entire
amount to deceased driver Nagesh family. Let the
deceased Nagesh family receive all the amount
whichever is given by petitioner in this court.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10365
HC-KAR
5. I state that, I humbly request this Hon'ble court
to pleased to kindly compound the alleged offences
and set aside the conviction/ sentence imposed by the
both the courts below on petitioner and I have no any
objection to acquit the petitioner from this case by
setting aside the judgment of order of conviction."
9. The offences for which the petitioner has been
convicted and sentenced by the Courts below are non
compoundable offences. Taking into consideration the nature of
offences and the sentence imposed on the accused, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of HASI MOHAN BARMAN AND
ANOTHER VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER reported in
(2008) 1 SCC 184 has held that Courts can consider reducing
the sentence imposed on the accused having regard to the
settlement arrived between the parties.
10. In the case of MANISH JALAN VS. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in (2008) 8 SCC 225, wherein, the
accused was convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC, having regard to the
settlement arrived between the parties and considering the
affidavit filed by the mother of the victim in the said case,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10365
HC-KAR
wherein, she had agreed to receive an additional compensation
from the petitioner and had volunteered to compound the
offences against him, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraphs
16 and 17 has observed as follows:
"16.True that in the instant case the appellant has
been found to be guilty of offences punishable under
Sections 279 and 304-A IPC for driving rashly and
negligently on a public street and his act unfortunately
resulted in the loss of a precious human life. But it is
pertinent to note that there was no allegation against the
appellant that at the time of accident, he was under the
influence of liquor or any other substance impairing his
driving skills. It was a rash and negligent act simpliciter
and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition which
is, undoubtedly despicable aggravated offence warranting
stricter and harsher punishment.
17. Having regard to all these facts and bearing in
mind the fact that the mother of the victim has no
grievance against the appellant and has prayed for some
compensation, we are of the view that a lenient view can
be taken in the matter and the sentence of imprisonment
can be reduced. We are of the opinion that the ends of
justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is
reduced to the period already undergone but in addition
thereto, the appellant should be directed to pay an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the mother of the deceased
by way of compensation. The learned counsel for the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10365
HC-KAR
appellant, in fact, indicated that his was willing to pay
that much amount. We order accordingly."
11. It is not the case of the prosecution that the
petitioner in the present case was driving the offending vehicle
under the influence of liquor or any other substance impairing
his driving skills. Accident is of the year 2010. The parties have
inter se settled the dispute and an affidavit of Mr. Bhujang
Shetty who is the legal representative of the deceased, who
were inmates of the car has been filed before this Court. In the
said affidavit he has stated that his driver Nagesh Rudrappa
Badigera has also died in the accident and compensation
amount can be paid to the legal representatives of the
deceased driver. This approach of Bhujanga M Shetty is
appreciable and the same is placed on record. In the affidavit
he has stated that this Court may permit the parties to
compound the alleged offences and set aside the order of
conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below. The legal
representatives of the deceased driver Nagesh have submitted
their willingness for settlement and also for permitting the
parties to compound the alleged offences and they have stated
that they have received cash of Rs.1 lakh from the petitioner
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10365
HC-KAR
today in the open Court. Under these circumstances, I am of
the considered view that lenient view is required to be taken in
the matter. Therefore, the judgment and order of conviction
and sentence passed by the Courts below is required to be
modified.
12. Accordingly, the following :-
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed by the Courts below
against the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 279 & 304A of
IPC is confirmed. However, the order of
sentence passed by the Courts below
against the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 304A of IPC is
modified and the petitioner is sentenced to
undergo imprisonment till the rising of the
Court and he shall also pay the fine amount
of Rs.1,000/- if not already paid, and in
default shall undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of one month.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10365
HC-KAR
(iii) It is brought to the notice of this Court that
the petitioner is now employed as a driver
in KSRTC. Therefore, the order of conviction
passed herein shall not affect his career and
shall not be treated as remark for his
employment in KSRTC.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
