Karnataka High Court

M.Suryanarayana vs State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2025

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                             -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC:2112
                                                    CRL.RP No. 816 of 2020




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                           BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                          CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.816 OF 2020

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    M.SURYANARAYANA
                         S/O LATE M RAMANNA,
                         AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
                         R/AT RAYALACHERUVU VILLAGE,
                         YADIKLI MANDAL,
                         ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT,
                         ANDHRA PRADESH 515455.

                   2.    B KRISHNA REDDY
                         S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
                         AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
                         R/AT B.KOTAPALLI VILLAGE,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M              BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM MANDAL,
Location: HIGH           ANDHRA PRADESH 515731.
COURT OF                                                   ...PETITIONERS
KARNATAKA
                   (BY SRI VISHWANATH H M, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   STATE OF KARNATAKA
                   THROUGH BEAGEPALLI POLICE
                   CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
                   REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   BENGALURU - 560 001
                                                           ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI L NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
                              -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:2112
                                       CRL.RP No. 816 of 2020




     THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED
28.03.2019 IN C.C.NO.280/2015 PASSED BY THE CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGEPALLI AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH


                      ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and also the learned HCGP appearing for the

State.

2. Earlier, this Court wanted to know how much

compensation was awarded in favour of victim family. In

this regard, the counsel for the petitioner produced a copy

of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in

M.F.A.No.9598/2018. Having perused the said order, it

discloses that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has

awarded only an amount of Rs.70,000/- as compensation

and the same has been challenged before this Court and

NC: 2025:KHC:2112

Division Bench of this Court enhanced the same to the

tune of Rs.4,17,000/-. The counsel referring this order

submits that incident was taken place while taking reverse

of the bus near the Daaba. The counsel also contends that

there is a negligence on the part of the victim also

because while bus was moving behind that means while

taking reverse, the victim came under the wheels of the

bus and the bus belongs to APSRTC. The counsel submits

that APSTRC also withheld the increments of the

petitioners who happens to be the driver and conductor of

the said bus. The counsel also submits that the incident

was taken place long back i.e., ten years ago and no

purpose would be served by sending them to undergo for

imprisonment and this Court can modify the order of the

Trial Court directing them to pay the monetary benefit to

the family of the victim and also submits that the

petitioners are ready to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

each and substaintal justice would be met if the same is

considered.

NC: 2025:KHC:2112

3. The counsel further submits that while passing

the sentence, the submission was made before the Trial

Court that accused No.1 said to having two children and

parents to take care of and accused No.2 is said to having

three daughters to take care of and as such the accused

persons are sentenced to undergo for simple imprisonment

for three months and a fine of Rs.3,000/- each for the

offences punishable under Section 304A of IPC and in

default, shall undergo an additional period of 15 days

simple imprisonment and a term of one month for the

offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and fine of

Rs.1,000/- each in default of payment of fine, accused

shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days each.

Hence, it requires interference of this Court in modifying

the order.

4. Per contra, the learned HCGP submits that

simple imprisonment is only for three months with a fine

of Rs.3,000/- each and State also not filed any appeal and

hence, question of interference by this Court does not

NC: 2025:KHC:2112

arise. The counsel also would vehemently contend that

while taking the reverse, this incident was taken place and

conductor would have given the signal while taking the

bus in a reverse direction. The petitioners were very

negligent and as a result, the victim lost his life and

hence, the question of interference does not arise.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the respective parties and also on perusal of the material

on record, the points that would arise for the consideration

of this Court are:

1. Whether this Court can exercise the revisional

jurisdiction in view of the submission made by the

counsel for the petitioners?

2. What order?

Point No.1:

6. The case of the prosecution is that on

16.03.2015 at about 1.00 a.m., accused No.1 who is the

driver of the bus No.AP02-A-0064 drove the said bus

backward towards NH-7 negligently without taking

NC: 2025:KHC:2112

precautions and accused No.2 being a conductor of the

said bus did not observe any person behind that bus or

give signal to the driver and as a result, the bus hit and

the rear wheel of that bus passed over the head and

portion of chest of Smt.Utham W/o Venkataraman and lost

her life and succumbed to the injuries at the spot in front

of Manjunatha Daaba. The prosecution also relies upon

the evidence of PW1 to PW6 and documents at Ex.P1 to

P15 and the petitioners herein have not led any defence

evidence before the Trial Court. The Trial Court after

considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on

record convicted the petitioners and sentenced to undergo

for prison.

7. Now the question before this Court is with

regard to the factual aspect is concerned. It is not in

dispute that the accident was taken place at 1.00 a.m. and

also it is not in dispute that the bus and the vehicle of the

victim were parked near the Daaba and petitioner No.1 is

the driver and petitioner No.2 is the conductor of the said

NC: 2025:KHC:2112

bus is also not in dispute. The material also discloses that

the vehicle was in a starting position and the victim came

behind the said bus. Though counsel appearing for the

petitioners contend that there is a negligence on the part

of the victim also and it is utmost duty and take care of

the victim while taking the bus in a reverse direction by

the driver and conductor of the bus. It is also taken note

of the said fact into consideration that the incident was

taken place at the mid night at 1.00 a.m. while taking

reverse and the accident was taken place a decade ago.

Hence, there is a force in the contention of the counsel for

the petitioners that by imposing heavy fine, the order of

the Trial Court may be modified.

8. Having taken note of the said fact into

consideration as well as under the circumstances in which

the accident was taken place that is while taking reverse

of the vehicle and not while proceeding in a highway and

both the vehicles were parked near the Daaba in order to

attend the nature call making convenience to the

NC: 2025:KHC:2112

passengers and the counsel for the petitioners brought to

notice of this Court that the Division Bench of this Court

enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.4,17,000/- as

against the amount of Rs.70,000/- passed by the Tribunal

and hence, this Court imposing heavy fine instead of

sentencing them to undergo for simple imprisonment for

three months, the same shall be met the ends of justice

by modifying the order. Accordingly, the above point is

answered as partly affirmative.

Point No.2:

9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER

The revision petition is allowed in part.

The impugned order dated 28.03.2019 passed in

C.C.No.280/2015 is modified. Instead of undergo for three

months simple imprisonment, imposed fine of

Rs.1,00,000/- each against the petitioners. Out of

Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.40,000/- each is ordered to be released

NC: 2025:KHC:2112

in favour of the children of the victim i.e., PW1-

Chandramohan (son); daughter - Channamma and one

more son - Channarayappa and Rs.70,000/- is ordered to

be released in favour of the husband of the victim i.e,

Venkataraman on proper identification and remaining

Rs.10,000/- is vest with the State.