Karnataka High Court

Bheemannagouda Biradar vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 July, 2025

Author: V. Srishananda

Bench: V. Srishananda

                                            -1-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
                                                  CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020


                   HC-KAR




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                    KALABURAGI BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                          BEFORE

                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA


                    CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200058/2020

                                  (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))

                   BETWEEN:

                   SHRI BHEEMANNAGOUDA BIRADAR,
                   S/O SHIVALINGAPPA BIRADAR,
                   AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC:DRIVER,
                   R/O. SANJEEVA NAGAR CROSS,
                   KEMBAVI, TQ. SHORAPUR,
Digitally signed   DIST. YADGIRI-585216
by SUMITRA                                                   ...PETITIONER
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH     (BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                   AND:


                   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                   THROUGH THE S.H.O. KEMBHAVI P.S.,
                   REP BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                   KALABURAGI BENCH-585102
                                                        ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
                                  CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020


HC-KAR




     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 18.09.2020 PASSED BY THE DIST.
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIRI, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.29/2019 THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 17.08.2019 PASSED BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHORAPUR, IN
C.C.NO.19/2019 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHALBE UNDER
SECTIONS 279, 337 AND 304A OF IPC.

     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 Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned

counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Jamadar

Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for

the respondent-State.

2. The revision petitioner is the accused, who

suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.19/2019 on the

file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Shorapur, for

the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774

HC-KAR

IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of six months for the offence under Section 304A of

IPC and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-; for the offence under

Section 337 of IPC, one month simple imprisonment and

fine of Rs.500/-; and for the offence under Section 279 of

IPC a fine of Rs.1000/- and one month imprisonment was

granted by the learned Trial Judge.

3. Validity of said order was challenged before the

First Appellate Court in Crl.A. No.29/2019 and learned

Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the

records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and

by considered judgment dated 18.09.2020 dismissed the

appeal of the accused.

4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is

before this Court in this revision on following grounds:

The impugned judgments and orders of the both the courts below are illegal, arbitrary and perverse. Therefore the same calls for

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774

HC-KAR

interference of this Hon'ble court to pass orders by setting aside same.

That, the both the courts below have failed to appreciate material evidence on record in correct prospective. Therefore, the orders of the court below are liable to be set aside.

That, the prosecution has completely failed to establish the negligent act of the accused, there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner accused was driving the car rashly and negligently so as to cause endanger to the human lives. Absolutely prosecution has failed to prove high speed of the car at the time of accident. Therefore, in the absence of a wanton and negligent act on the part of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the prosecution had made out a case for conviction.

That, the courts below have committed serious error of law in appreciating the evidence of the PW1,PW2,PW3,PW4 & PW7,PW8 who claimed to be the eye witness to the incident. The close reading of the entire cross examination of the above PW's it clearly goes to show that no one have witnessed the incident and they are all hearsay witnesses.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774

HC-KAR

Both the courts have also ignored major contradictions in the evidence of the above PW's with regard to the manner of accident. Therefore the prosecution has failed to discharge initial burden on it, as such the accused under the principle of benefit of doubt is liable to be acquitted. Very contradictions in the statements of PW's given give at the time of lodging complaint and a statement under section 161 of CRPC before the police and before the court while they were examining as witnesses are totally inconsistent with each other and in all probability the material produced before the trial court is not suffice to hold the petitioner/accused as guilty of the charges levied. Hence the same requires indulgence of this Hon'ble court to set aside the impugned orders.

That the both the courts have failed to appreciate the fact that the parents of the both the children have left the children on the road without keeping any observation on them. Therefore the parents of the children have contributed to the accident.

That there are omissions, admissions and major contradictions in the evidence of

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774

HC-KAR

prosecution witnesses which are completely ignored by the both the courts below.

That in so far as quantum of sentence is concerned, looking to the manner in which the accident has occurred, imposition of maximum sentence of six months is higher side. That this Hon'ble court in Crl. A. No.564/1999 wherein this Court imposed sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- only for the offence under Section 304-A IPC on the ground that about six years the Trail Court has not disposed of the case and the accused was attending the Trial Court about 72 to 75 hearing dates. In another decision in Crl. A. No. 512/1994 this Court also imposed fine of Rs.5, 000/- for the offence under Section 304- A IPC on the ground that the case was disposed of about eight years after the incident. In Crl. A. No. 293/1991 also this Court imposed sentence to pay fine of Rs.2, 500/- while setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court had imposed fine of Rs.250/- only for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. In Criminal Revision Petition No.8/2004 this Court also imposed fine of Rs.4,000/- only for the offence under Section 304-A IPC on the ground that the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774

HC-KAR

accident in that case had taken place in the year 1990 and the Revision Petition is disposed of after 14 years the Revision Petition came up for hearing. Hence the sentence imposed by the courts are to be modified.

In A.P. Raju Vs. State of Orissa (1995 SCC (Cri) 675) the Supreme Court held, in the circumstances, the appellant directed to be released under Section 360 Cr.P.C. on probation of good conduct, be of good behaviour and keep peace for a period of one year on the ground that the accident took place about 15 years ago and the appellant was remaining on bail for the last more than 8 years.

In AITHA CHANDER RAO V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 1981 SCC(Crl) 637 the Supreme Court extended the benefit of the Act to the accused in that case.

There is no law which lays down that the provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable to the case of an accused convicted for an offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. Section 4 of the Act applies to all the offences except the offences punishable with

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774

HC-KAR

imprisonment for life or death. The offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. is punishable in maximum with 2 years imprisonment or fine. Therefore, the provisions of the Act can be made applicable even to a person who is convicted of an offence punishable under Section 304-A 1.P.C. Whether the benefit of the Act should be given to an accused convicted of the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case reported in Aitha Chander Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1981 SCC(Crl) 637 the benefit of the Act was given to the accused in that case as there was finding that there was some amount of contributory negligence on the part of the victim and the peculiar circumstances of the case.

5. Sri Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned counsel

for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in

the region petition, vehemently contended that both the

Courts have not properly appreciated the material

evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused,

hence, he sought for allowing the revision petition.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774

HC-KAR

6. He would also contend that in the event this

Court upholding the order of conviction, since the

deceased was child, which came on the road all of a

sudden, by ordering the suitable compensation, sentence

of imprisonment may be set aside.

7. Per contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned

High Court Government Pleader opposes the revision

petition.

8. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf

of the parties, this Court perused material available on

record meticulously.

9. On such perusal of the records, it is crystal

clear that the charge-sheet materials revealed that

accused being the driver of the car bearing No.KA-33/M-

1855, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner

from Kembhavi roadside and dashed against Devendrappa

and Tejaswini, who were playing in front of their house.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774

HC-KAR

10. Devendrappa sustained grievous injuries,

whereas, Tejaswini sustained simple injuries on the

forehead. Devendrappa was being shifted in the car of the

accused himself for the hospital at Kembhavi and

thereafter, to Shahapur. Enroute near Chamnal,

Devendrappa breathed his last and as such, the dead body

was brought to the village.

11. Based on the complaint lodged by the father of

the deceased, police registered the case for the offences

punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC,

thoroughly investigated matter and filed charge-sheet.

12. Presence of accused was secured and charges

were framed. Accused not pleaded guilty therefore, trial

was held.

13. In order to bring home the gift of the accused,

in all 12 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 12 and as

many as 10 documents have been placed on record, which

were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P10, comprising

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774

HC-KAR

of complaint, spot mahazar, seizure mahazar, inquest

mahazar, post mortem report, etc.

14. On conclusion of recording of evidence, accused

statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein accused has denied the

incriminating materials, but failed to offer any explanation

whatsoever to the incriminating materials found in the

case of the prosecution nor placed his version on record so

as to appreciate the stand taken by the accused, which

was put forward to prosecution witnesses in the cross-

examination.

15. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the

arguments of the parties and convicted the accused,

disbelieving the alternate theory put forward by the

accused that all of a sudden the deceased came on road

and whereby the accident has occurred and convicted the

accused.

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774

HC-KAR

16. On re-consideration of evidence, it is seen that

in the cross-examination of PW1, it has been elicited that

he is not an eyewitness to the incident. Admittedly, from

the complaint itself, it is found that somebody informed

the complainant about the incident and therefore he

rushed to his house.

17. PW2 is the uncle of the deceased. He deposed

that at about 9.30 or 10.00 a.m., Devendrappa and his

daughter Tejaswini were playing in the front yard of the

house. At that juncture, accused being the driver of the

Indica Car bearing No. KA-33/M-1855, came in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the children, who

were playing in the front yard. Tejaswini sustained blood

injury on the forehead, whereas, Devendrappa sustained

grievous injuries and enroute to the Shorapur Hospital

after taking the first aid in Kembhavi Hospital

Devendrappa lost his life.

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774

HC-KAR

18. In his cross-examination, it has been elicited

that on hearing the hue and cry, the inmates of the house

came there and they intimated about the accident and

knowing the grievous injuries sustained by Devendrappa,

accused voluntarily took the injured in his car.

19. In the examination-in-chief of PW6-Doctor, by

mistake instead of mentioning the name of Devendrappa,

the Doctor has mentioned the name of the injured

Tejaswini. However, he was not cross-examined by

accused. However, witness was recalled and the

discrepancy is rectified by conducting further examination-

in-chief.

20. Shankramma being the mother of the deceased

supported the case of the prosecution by stating that her

son Devendrappa and her niece Tejaswini were playing in

the front yard of the house and at that juncture accused

being the driver of car dashed against them, whereby,

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774

HC-KAR

Devendrappa sustained grievous injuries and Tejaswini

sustained minor injuries.

21. In her cross-examination she has specifically

answered that she is an eyewitness to the incident and

after hearing the loud sound she came out of the house

and saw the incident. She denied the suggestion that to

lay a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, she

has deposed falsely.

22. It was also suggested to her that the children

themselves came on the road while playing and incident

has occurred. The said suggestion was denied by her.

23. She admits however that accused took the

injured in his car to the hospital. The above, evidence on

record is sought to be re-appreciated by the counsel for

the revision petitioner.

24. Having bestowed best attention to the material

evidence placed on record, it is pertinent to note that the

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774

HC-KAR

alternate theory put forward on behalf of the accused that

because of the young age of the children, they themselves

came under the car which was moving in normal speed on

the road is not probablized by atleast placing plausible

evidence on record.

25. Further, accused being the driver of the

offending car, failed to explain these aspects of the matter

at the time of recording the accused statement.

26. Prosecution is successful in placing the

necessary material evidence, whereby, negligence of the

revision petitioner is established.

27. Further, accused has gone to the extent of

denying the question that was put to him in the 313

statement that he shifted the injured in his own car and

Devendrappa lost his life near Chaminal Village when he

was shifted from Kembhavi Hospital to Shahapur Hospital.

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774

HC-KAR

28. Taking note of these aspects of the matter

when there is no plausible proof placed on record to

establish the alternate theory and accused having failed to

explain the incriminatory circumstances or at least placed

his version on record, the order of conviction recorded by

Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court

needs no interference by this Court, that too in the

revisional jurisdiction.

29. View of this Court in this regard is supported by

the principles of law enunciated by Apex Court in the case

of Ravi Kapur vs State Of Rajasthan reported in

(2012)9 SCC 284. Accordingly, the order of conviction

needs to be maintained.

30. Having said thus, this Court bestowed its

attention to the sentence portion. The learned Trial

Magistrate taking note of the fact that accused has shifted

the injured in his own car for the immediate medical

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774

HC-KAR

treatment, has only granted six months imprisonment for

the offence under Section 304A IPC.

31. Taking note of the principles of law enunciated

in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE

OF PUNJAB Vs. SAURABH BAKSHI reported in (2015)

5 SCC 182, this Court does not find any reasons or

mitigating circumstances to further reduce the sentence.

Accordingly, the order of sentence needs to be maintained.

32. In view of the foregoing discussions, the

following:

ORDER

i) The criminal revision petition is meritless

and it is hereby dismissed.

ii) The revision petitioner is granted time till

31.07.2025 for surrendering before the

Trial Court for serving the remaining part

of the sentence.

- 18 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774

HC-KAR

iii) Office is directed to return the Trial Court

Records along with copy of this order

forthwith.

Sd/-

(V. SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

SBS

CT:PK