Karnataka High Court

Khyamanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2025

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                                -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC-K:3885
                                                      CRL.RP No. 200062 of 2021


                   HC-KAR




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                      KALABURAGI BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                            BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

                     CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200062 OF 2021
                                    (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
                   BETWEEN:

                   KHYAMANNA S/O BEERAPPA,
                   AGE:51 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
                   R/O. NANDUR (K),
                   TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI,
                   NOW AT CHANVEER NAGAR,
                   FILTERBED KALABURAGI-02.

                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. SHIVASHARANA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

Digitally signed   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH,
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR           TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI,
Location: HIGH     REPT BY ADDL. SPP,
COURT OF           HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KARNATAKA          KALABURAGI BENCH -02

                                                                  ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP)

                        THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/SEC.397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC
                   PRAYING TO, CONSIDERING FACTS AND GROUNDS OF THIS
                   PETITION, THE ORDER OF LEARNED I ADDL. DIST. AND
                   SESSIONS JUDGE, AT KALABURAGI, DATED 01.03.2021, IN CRL.
                   APPEAL NO. 17/2019 IN CONFIRMING ORDER PASSED BY THE
                   LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KALABURAGI IN C.C.
                   NO. 3003/2016 DATED 04.02.2019 IN CONVICTING PETITIONER
                                -2-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC-K:3885
                                       CRL.RP No. 200062 of 2021


HC-KAR



FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 AND 304(A)
OF IPC AND U/SEC. 187 OF MV ACT, MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE.

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

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA


                           ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

1. Heard Sri. Shivasharana Reddy, learned counsel

for the petitioner and learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent-State.

2. The revision petitioner is the accused who has

suffered an order of conviction for the offences punishable

under Sections 279, 304A of IPC and 187 of Indian Motor

Vehicles Act and sentenced as under:

"ORDER

In exercise of powers conferred under section 255(2) Cr.P.C., accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/Secs. 279 and 304(A) IPC R/w. Section 187 IMV Act.

Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and also shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to pay fine, the accused shall

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3885

HC-KAR

further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month, for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC.

Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and also shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to pay fine, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months, for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC.

Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to pay fine, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days, for the offence punishable under Section 187 IMV Act.

All sentence shall run concurrently.

The bail bond and surety bond of accused stands cancelled."

3. The validity of the order of conviction and

sentence was challenged before the first appellate Court in

Criminal Appeal No.17/2019.

4. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court after

securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in

detail and by Judgment dated 01.03.2021 dismissed the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3885

HC-KAR

appeal of the revision petitioner and confirmed the order of

conviction and sentence.

5. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused

is before this Court in this revision petition.

6. Sri. Shivasharana Reddy, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the

petition, contended that, both the Courts have not properly

appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly

convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sought

for allowing the revision petition.

7. Alternatively, Sri. Shivasharana Reddy, would

contend that, in the event this Court upholding the order of

conviction by enhancing the fine amount, order of

imprisonment may be set aside and sought for allowing the

revision petition.

8. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader supports the impugned Judgments and contends

that, there is no case made out by the accused either for

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3885

HC-KAR

setting aside the conviction order or reducing the sentence

and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto.

9. Having heard the arguments from both sides, this

Court perused the material on record meticulously.

10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is

crystal clear that, a complaint came to be lodged in respect

of a road traffic accident occurred on 13.01.2016 at about

6.00 p.m. wherein a lorry bearing No.KA-28-B-1464 dashed

against a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-32-EJ-8013,

near R.Swamy Complex and because of the impact of the

accident, rider of the motorcycle by name Jagannath @

Jagappa and pillion rider Mahadevappa have sustained

grievous injuries on the vital parts of their body as well as

succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. On receipt of

message of road traffic accident, wife of the deceased

Jagannath @ Jagappa came to the spot and a complaint

came to be lodged and police after thorough investigation

filed charge-sheet.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3885

HC-KAR

11. On receipt of the charge-sheet, learned trial

Magistrate took cognizance and secured the presence of the

accused and after due trial, convicted the accused noting

that, the accused was the driver of the offending lorry and

he did not have any explanation to offer for the death of two

persons who are the rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle

bearing No.KA-32-EJ-8013 on account of rash and negligent

driving of the lorry bearing No.KA-28-B-1464 on 31.01.2016

at 6.00 p.m. near R.Swamy Complex.

12. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court re-

appreciated the aforesaid evidence and confirmed the order

of conviction.

13. In the light of the revisional grounds this Court

re-appreciated the material evidence on record. On perusal

of such material evidence on record, it is noted that, apart

from complaint, the prosecution relied on the evidence of

P.W.5-Manjunath and P.W.6 Bhagamma who have not only

witnessed the accident and also informed the wife of the

deceased about the incident and they deposed before the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3885

HC-KAR

Court with graphic details as to what transpired on the date

of incident and which stood the searching cross-examination

on behalf of the accused.

14. Further, there is no dispute that the accused is

driver of the lorry which came from Tazsultanpur road

towards the filter bed and colluded against the motorcycle.

15. Crowning all these aspects of the matter, there

was no explanation whatsoever offered by the accused, nor

there was any written submissions filed on behalf of the

accused.

16. Under such circumstances, order of recording the

conviction by the trial Judge, confirmed by the first appellate

Court needs no interference by this Court, that too in the

revisional jurisdiction.

17. Having said thus, it is pleaded on behalf of the

revision petitioner that revision petitioner has lost his wife

recently and he is suffering from partial blindness on account

of glaucoma and there is nobody to look after the family

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3885

HC-KAR

members and thus, sought for setting aside the

imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount.

18. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader contends that, two precious human lives have been

lost in the accident on account of rash and negligent driving

of the revision petitioner and therefore, no mercy can be

shown to the revision petitioner.

19. Having heard the arguments from both sides, this

Court summoned the revision petitioner before the Court to

find out his health condition.

20. This Court is satisfied that, the revision petitioner

is suffering from partial blindness on account of glaucoma

and he having lost his wife, there is nobody to look after the

family.

21. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the

sentence of imprisonment is reduced to six months simple

imprisonment, by enhancing the fine amount of Rs.25,000/-.

22. Accordingly, following order:

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3885

HC-KAR

ORDER

(i) The revision petition is allowed in part;

(ii) While maintaining conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC, read with Section 187 of IMV Act, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial Magistrate, confirmed by the first appellate Court of two years for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC, is reduced to six months by imposing enhanced fine amount of Rs.25,000/-;

(iii) Sentence of imprisonment ordered for offence under Section 279 of IPC is hereby set aside as it merges with the offence under Section 304-A of IPC;