Karnataka High Court
Sri. C. Swamygowda @ Swamy vs State Of Karnataka By on 31 January, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4735
CRL.RP No. 253 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 253 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. C. SWAMYGOWDA @ SWAMY
S/O. SRI. BORE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT KADABA VILLAGE,
CHINAKURALI HOBLI,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 455.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GAURAV S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SRIRANGAPATTANA POLICE
Digitally signed REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
by DEVIKA M HIGH COURT BUILDING,
Location: HIGH BENGALURU-560 001.
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, SPP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W. 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 22.06.2015 PASSED BY
THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
SRIRANGAPATTANA IN C.C.NO.3/2014 AND THE JUDGMENT
DATED 11.1.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA (SITTING AT
SRIRANGAPATTANA) IN CRL.A.NO.5015/2015, CONSEQUENTLY
ACQUIT THE REVISION PETITIONER FROM THE CHARGES
LEVELLED AGAINST HIM.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4735
CRL.RP No. 253 of 2017
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
1. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner
and also the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This revision petition is filed against the
conviction and confirmation for the offence punishable
under Section 337, 338 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code
and accused is convicted for the said offences and accused
is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for
the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC. In
default of payment of fine, the accused is ordered to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
months.
3. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is
that on 3-12-2011 at about 8.45 p.m on Bangalore -
Mysore public road, before Balaji garden hotel, at
NC: 2025:KHC:4735
Srirangapatna town, the accused being the driver of the
tractor-trailer bearing reg. no.KA.35.T.4673 has
negligently parked the said punctured tractor-trailer on the
road without putting parking lights and without giving any
indication of parking of the said tractor-trailer on the road,
as a result of which one Jagadeesha, the driver of the
canter bearing reg. no.KA.04.B.7540 has driven the same
from the side of Bangalore towards Mysore and dashed the
canter to the back portion of the tractor-trailer resulting
into accident, as a result of which Jagadeesha the driver of
the canter vehicle sustained grievous injuries to both his
legs and CW.2 Ravi the cleaner of the canter and CW.3
Chandra one of the loader of the canter have sustained
simple and grievous injuries and Jagadeesha injured the
driver of the canter vehicle was succumbed to the injuries
on the same night at about 11.10 p.m. at K.R. Hospital,
Mysore.
4. The Police have registered the case and
investigated the matter and filed charge sheet and the
NC: 2025:KHC:4735
revision petitioner was secured and he did not plead guilty
and hence prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and also
got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and this petitioner not lead
any defense evidence and Trial Court having considered
the material available on record and also eye witnesses
who have been examined before the Trial Court convicted
the petitioner since even not cross examined the PW1 to
PW3 and taking note of the IMV report as well as the
sketch comes to the conclusion that accident is on account
of negligence on the part of this petitioner. Being aggrived
by the said order, an appeal is filed before the First
Appellate Court and First Appellate Court also on re-
appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, an appeal Crl.A.No.5015/2015 confirmed
the judgment of the Trial Court and sentence. Being
aggrieved by the said order, filed present revision petition
before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for revision petitioner
would vehemently contend that both the Courts have
NC: 2025:KHC:4735
committed an error and counsel for the respondent would
contend the Trial Court having taken note of evidence
available on record, rightly comes to the conclusion since
PW1 and PW2 who are the eye witnesses have
categorically deposed the manner in which the accident
was taken place and there is no any sign of parking of the
vehicle and the same was not parked with indication of
parking light and not having any sign of parking of vehicle
on the road and also even not cross examined the
witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW3. The PW4 is the I.M.V
inspector and he inspected the vehicle and given the
report and PW5 is the Police Sub-Inspector and PW6 is the
mahazar witness and also he had visited the hospital and
other witnesses are formal witnesses.
6. Having re-assessed the material also not found
any illegality committed by the Trial Court in appreciating
the evidence and this Court comes to such a conclusion.
The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
submits that instead of sentencing him Court can impose
NC: 2025:KHC:4735
some compensation to be payable to the family of the
victim.
7. The counsel in support of his argument relied
upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of George
V/s State of Kerala delivered on 03.09.2024 wherein
the Apex Court invoked Section 428 and set off the period
he had undergone for a period of 117 days and having
taken note of the fact that accident was happened 26
years ago and he was on bail throughout the trial having
been in custody for about 117 days after his arrest,
modified the sentence of period already undergone and
the payment of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- has
directed. Having considered he is an old person and aged
about 69 years and also having several medical issues,
reduced the compensation for an amount of Rs.50,000/-.
8. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of
the Apex Court passed in Crl.A.No.536/2021 dated
30.06.2021 in a case of Surendran V/s Sub-Inspector
of Police wherein a case for 279, 338 and 337 of IPC and
NC: 2025:KHC:4735
also taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court in case
of Prakash Chandra Agnihotri wherein taking note of
accident of the year 1972 and also more than 26 years
ago, incident was taken place and he was on bail and
enhanced the fine amount for the offences punishable
under Section 279, 338 and 337 of IPC maintaining the
conviction and sentence.
9. Having considered the principles laid down in
the judgments in those cases incident was taken place 26
years ago, but in the case on hand, incident was taken
place in the year 2011 and also having considered the
factual aspects, due to the puncture of his tractor he had
parked the vehicle without any signal and also the canter
which came in the same direction without noticing the
parking of the said vehicle, since there was no any sign or
parking lights on the tractor which was parked, dashed
against him and as a result driver passed away who is
aged about 27 years and family of the victim also lost the
bread earning member of the family. When such being the
NC: 2025:KHC:4735
case, having considered the said fact into consideration
and also vehicle was parked on account of puncture of
tractor -trailer and also two persons have sustained
injuries in the incident instead of imprisoning him to
undergo sentence, if compensation is awarded, it would
meet the ends of justice. Hence, it is appropriate to
maintain the conviction and only sentence is modified and
the fine of Rs.10,000/- is enhanced to Rs.2,50,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) and the same is
payable within six weeks from today. Hence, directed to
pay the amount within six weeks without any default. If he
commits the default, the conviction and sentence passed
by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate
Court would be restored and he has to undergo the
sentence as ordered earlier.
10. The District Legal Service Authority, Mandya is
directed to ascertain whether the deceased is married, if
he is married, the compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- is
payable to his wife and if he not married and survived with
NC: 2025:KHC:4735
mother or father then both of them are entitled for equally
payable for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- each and the
same has to be disbursed on proper identification and
compensation amount shall reach the kith and kin of the
family who lost the person of 27 years old and remaining
amount of Rs.10,000/- shall vest with the State.
Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
