Karnataka High Court
Ganesh Rao vs The State Of Karnataka By on 29 January, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4188
CRL.RP No. 1115 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1115 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. GANESH RAO
S/O K. PRATAP RAO
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
DOOR NO.12/13,
AGRABAIL HOUSE,
JODUMARGA,
B.MOODA VILLAGE,
BANTWAL TALUKA
D.K. DISTRICT-574 211.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH BY KADABA POLICE STATION,
COURT OF PUTTUR, D.K. - 574 221
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 23.06.2015 PASSED
BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR, D.K., IN
C.C.NO.1147/2012 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4188
CRL.RP No. 1115 of 2016
05.07.2016 PASSED BY TEH V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K. IN
CRL.A.NO.5018/2015 (CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 338 AND 304(A) OF
IPC) AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED OF THE
CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
HCGP for the respondent-State.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution
before the Trial Court is that on 18.03.2012 at 4.20 p.m., the
accused being the driver of Maruthi 800 car drove the same in
a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life, when he
reached near Annadka Gandi Sanka located at Kunthoor
Village, Puttur Taluk, lost control over the vehicle, took the
vehicle to extreme right side to his direction, dashed against
the bridge, caused capsize of vehicle under the bridge, resulting
simply injury to C.W.3-Varshitha and caused injuries to C.W.2-
Pushpa and Kum. Varsha and accused. Subsequently,
Kum. Varsha succumbed to the injuries sustained by her, on
the same day evening at hospital. The C.W.1, Radhakrishna,
NC: 2025:KHC:4188
who was passer by at the relevant time of accident went and
lodged the complaint and police have investigated the matter
and filed the charge sheet and the accused was convicted for
the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A
IPC.
3. The accused was secured and he did not plead
guilty and he was subjected to 313 statement and did not lead
defence evidence. The Trial Court considering the prosecution
evidence and the defence evidence, comes to the conclusion
that the accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of
the petitioner and even considered the defence evidence in
paragraph No.13, wherein he categorically admitted that the
road is 100 to 150 feet straight road and the driver is able to
see the moving vehicles and he could see the on coming
vehicles in front of his vehicle and the moving of cattle from a
distance of 100 feet from front. Having taken note of the
defence as well as the evidence available on record, convicted
and sentenced the petitioner for all the offences and maximum
sentence given is six months for the offence punishable under
Section 304A IPC.
NC: 2025:KHC:4188
4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, an
appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in
Crl.A.No.5018/2015 and the First Appellate Court also having
reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record and particularly the defence evidence, comes to the
conclusion that if really, accused was not driving the car with
speed and if the accused was driving the car in controllable
speed, definitely he could have stopped the vehicle by applying
brake. Of course in Ex.P3-tyre marks are showed on the mud
road, but not averted the accident and not stopped the vehicle
from going to the bridge. If not the speed of vehicle, but
negligence plays important role for the accident. In this case,
nothing on the side of accused to show that he has exercised
due care and caution while driving the vehicle prior to the
accident and in detail discussion was made and also taken note
of the said fact in paragraph No.22 and confirmed the judgment
of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding,
present revision petition is filed before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that both the Courts failed to consider the
material on record and petitioner has also led his defence
NC: 2025:KHC:4188
evidence and clearly deposed before the Court, how the
accident has taken place, since he took the defence that cow
came across the vehicle and as a result, he could not avoid the
accident and took the vehicle on the right side and hit the
bridge and the same has not been appreciated by the Trial
Court and the First Appellate Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that the matter has been settled between
the parties and rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
criminal appeal arising out of SLP (CRIMINAL) NO.11041 OF
2024 in GEORGE VS. STATE OF KERALA, wherein the Apex
Court taking note of the accident has taken place 26 years ago
and also considering the fine amount and he has been in
custody for about 117 days, modified the sentence to the
period already undergone and also reduced the compensation
of Rs.2.5 lakhs to Rs.50,000/-.
7. Learned counsel also relied upon the order passed
by the Apex Court in CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2719 OF 2023
arising out of SLP (CRL) NO.5084/2022 dated 05.09.2023
in ELANGOVAN VS. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF
NC: 2025:KHC:4188
POLICE. The Apex Court taking note of the submission made,
observed that considering the nature of offence and character
of the offender, in our opinion, it would be expedient to release
him and instead of sentencing him to punishment, admonished
him, sustaining the order of conviction under Sections 337 and
304-A of IPC, but set aside the sentence by which he has been
directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months.
The Apex Court directed the appellant to pay compensation of
Rs.3 lakhs to the victim's kin. A sum of Rs.2 lakhs had already
been deposited with the Registry and the said sum was also
released to the kin of the victim upon proper identification and
remitted directly to his account. Learned counsel referring this
judgment would vehemently contend that when the Apex Court
has admonished the sentence and directed to pay the
compensation to the victim, this Court can also impose the
compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
State would contend that incidence has taken place in 2012 and
in the judgment referred by learned counsel for the petitioner
in GEORGE VS. STATE OF KERALA, the accident had occurred
26 years ago and modified the sentence to the period already
NC: 2025:KHC:4188
undergone, since he was in custody for a period of 117 days
and also imposed fine and in other case in ELANGOVAN VS.
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, the Apex Court
ordered to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. He also would
vehemently contend that in the case on hand, in view of rash
and negligence on the part of the petitioner, who went and
dashed against the bridge, it clearly shows that he was driving
the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and as a result, a
girl, who was a minor lost her life and others sustained injuries
and the same has been considered by the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court and both the Courts taken note of the
defence evidence and the evidence of the petitioner has been
considered by the Trial Court and reassessed by the First
Appellate Court in paragraph No.22 of the judgment. The
material discloses that the petitioner could not control the car
and was driving the same in a high speed and as a result,
vehicle has capsized. Hence, it is very clear that petitioner was
driving the car in a rash and negligent manner and it does not
require any interference.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned HCGP for the respondent-State and also taking note of
NC: 2025:KHC:4188
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GEORGE VS.
STATE OF KERALA, wherein he was in custody for about 117
days, the same was modified, observing that we deem it
appropriate to modify the sentence to the period already
undergone and reduced the compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs to
Rs.50,000/- and in the other case in ELANGOVAN VS. STATE
REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE also referred supra, when
punishment was imposed for three months, admonished the
sentence directing him to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to
the kin of the victim and also taken note of the fact that an
amount of Rs.2 lakhs was already deposited with the Registry
and deposit of additional amount of Rs.1 lakh was ordered.
10. Having taken note of the material on record,
particularly prosecution evidence and defence evidence, the
theory of the defence was not accepted by the Trial Court and
the First Appellate Court and the same is considered by the
Trial Court in paragraph No.13 and the Trial Court taken note of
the fact that road was a straight road and anything could be
visible from 100 to 150 feet. Hence, the reasoning of the First
Appellate Court in paragraph No.22 and the Trial Court in
paragraph No.13 cannot be termed as perverse and illegal.
NC: 2025:KHC:4188
However, taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court in
GEORGE VS. STATE OF KERALA, the appellant was in
custody for 117 days, but in the case on hand, the petitioner is
not in custody and in the subsequent case in ELANGOVAN VS.
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, the Apex Court
ordered for admonishing the sentence and ordered to pay
compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to the kin of the victim. Having
taken note of the said fact into consideration, in the case on
hand, incident has taken place 12 years ago and not as
observed i.e., 26 years ago and having considered the fact that
an occupant of the car, who is the victim has lost her life at the
beginning of her age and she was a minor and considering the
factual aspects of the case, it is appropriate to direct the
petitioner to pay the compensation of Rs.3 lakhs as ordered by
the Apex Court in the judgment in ELANGOVAN VS. STATE
REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE in CRL.A.NO.2719 OF
2023 and deposit the same within four weeks from today and
the petitioner is admonished of the sentence in view of the
judgment of the Apex Court exercising the jurisdiction under
Sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4188
11. Having taken note of the reasoning given by the
Apex Court in the judgment, the sentence of the petitioner is
admonished directing him to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to
the parent i.e., P.W.2, who is also an injured witness and
mother of the victim.
12. With these observations, the revision petition
stands disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit the
amount within four weeks from today and the same shall be
released in favour of P.W.2 on proper identification after
defraying an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the State on proper
identification.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
