Karnataka High Court
Harinath vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 June, 2025
Author: V. Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372
CRL.RP No. 200100 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200100 OF 2020
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
HARINATH S/O PEDDAGANGI REDDY,
AGE:47 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. APPARCHARVU VILLAGE,
TQ. DARMAVARAM,
DIST. ANANTAPUR- 586213,
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.
Digitally signed by ...PETITIONER
SUMITRA
SHERIGAR (BY SRI R.S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE SHO., MANAGULI P.S.,
REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372
CRL.RP No. 200100 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 04.09.2020 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.22/2020 BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
VIJAYAPURA, IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY
THE PETITIONER AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED
09.03.2020 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, COURT, BASAVANA BAGEWADI IN
C.C.NO.412/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 279 AND 304A OF IPC ALONG WITH SECTION
187 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER OF ALL THE ABOVE NOTED CHARGES.
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 learned counsel Sri R.S. Lagali appearing
for the revision petitioner and learned High Court
Government Pleader Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin appearing
for the respondent-State.
2. The revision petitioner is accused, who suffered
an order of conviction for the offences punishable under
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372
HC-KAR
Sections 397, 304(A) of IPC read with Section 187 of
Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced as under in C.C.
No.412/2018:
"Accused is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months and
to pay a fine of `1,000/- in default of the same
shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen)
days for the offence punishable U/Sec. 279 of IPC.
Further the accused is sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 6(six) months
and to pay a fine of `5,000/- in default of the same
shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1
(one) month for the offence punishable U/Sec.
304A of IPC.
Further the accused is sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) month
and to pay a fine of `500/- in default of the same
shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
7(seven) days for the offence punishable U/Sec.
187 of M V Act.
All the sentences shall run concurrently."
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372
HC-KAR
3. Validity of the order of conviction and sentence
was questioned before the District Court in Crl.A.
No.22/2020.
4. Learned Appellate Court after securing the
records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and
dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of conviction
and sentence.
5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is
before this Court in this revision.
6. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the revision petition are as under:
6.1 Smt. Shanthibai W/o Paramanand Alur, lodged
a complaint with the Managuli Police, contending that on
21.03.2016 in the morning, Paramanand left the house to
go to Vijayapura on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/R-
3951. When he had reached near Hunashihal Village, one
of the relatives of the complainant by name
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372
HC-KAR
Chandrasekhar informed the complainant over the
telephone that on NH-50 Road near "0" point, a mini lorry
dashed the motor cycle of Paramanand and he sustained
serious injuries to the head, face and hands and he
succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
6.2 After receipt of such information, complainant
rushed to the spot and noticed her husband Paramanand
has succumbed to the accidental injuries and a mini lorry
bearing No.AP-02/TA-5018 was also found near the place
of incident. Chandrasekhar Kotli, who witnessed the
incident, had also identified the driver of the lorry, who is
the revision petitioner.
6.3 Based on the said complaint, Managuli Police
registered a case in Crime No.57/2016 for the aforesaid
offences. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came
to be filed.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372
HC-KAR
6.4 Presence of the accused was secured and after
due trial accused came to be convicted and sentenced as
referred to supra.
7. The testimony of the eyewitnesses to the
incident on non-explanation of the accused for the incident
is taken as the basis for connecting the accused.
Thereafter, appeal filed by the accused came be dismissed
and therefore, the revision petition is filed before this
Court.
8. Sri R.S. Lagali, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision
petition contended that Chandrashekhar Kotli is admittedly
the relative of the deceased and therefore, his testimony is
interested testimony, which has to be appreciated with
extra care and caution. Learned trial Judge failed to note
the same. Therefore, the conviction of the accused for the
aforesaid offence is impermissible and sought for allowing
the revision.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372
HC-KAR
9. Alternatively, Sri R.S. Lagali would contend that
in the event of this Court upholding the order of
conviction, this Court may enhance the fine amount and
set aside the imprisonment.
10. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin for the respondent-State
supports the impugned judgment.
11. He would further contend that material on
record has been rightly appreciated by both the Courts
below and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
12. Having heard the learned counsels on both
sides, this Court perused the material on record
meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it
is crystal clear that deceased was the rider of the
motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/R-3951. The accident has
occurred on NH-50 Road at '0' point. Offending vehicle is
mini lorry bearing No.AP-02/TA-5018.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372
HC-KAR
13. It is also not in dispute that the revision
petitioner was driver of the offending vehicle at the time of
accident.
14. No doubt, the accident was informed to the
complainant by one of the relatives, namely
Chandrasekhar. He has been examined before the trial
Court as PW4.
15. It is settled principles of law and requires no
emphasis merely on the ground of interestedness oral
testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be brushed aside in
toto. In such circumstances, the Courts are required to
exercise extra care and caution to rule out the possibility
of the false implication of the accused.
16. In the case on hand, at the time of recording
accused statement, the revision petitioner did not submit
that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Charge-
sheet filed against the accused is also not challenged by
the accused.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372
HC-KAR
17. Further, atleast accused should have placed on
record his version about the incident by contending that
the accident has not occurred on account of his fault, but
on account of the deceased himself. In the absence of
such material evidence placed on record, following the
dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAVI
KAPUR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN1 conviction order
recorded by the trial Judge, confirmed by the first
Appellate Court cannot be interfered by this Court, that
too in the revisional jurisdiction.
18. Having said so, it is noticed that the trial Judge
has awarded 06 months simple imprisonment for the
offence of under Section 304(A) of IPC. Following the
dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF
PUNJAB Vs. SAURABH BAKSHI2, the 06 months
imprisonment for the offence of Section 304-A of IPC
cannot be faulted with.
(2012)9 SCC 284
(2015)5 SCC 182
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372
HC-KAR
19. However, awarding 03 months imprisonment
for the offence of Section 279 needs to be set aside as the
offence of Section 279 merges with the higher offence of
Section 304-A of IPC. To that extent, the interference is
sought for. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The revision petition is allowed in part.
ii) While maintaining the conviction of the
accused for the offences under Sections
279, 304-A, 187 of the Indian Penal Code,
the separate sentence of imprisonment of
03 months ordered for the offence under
Section 279 of IPC is hereby set aside.
iii) Rest of the sentences remained unaltered.
iv) Time is granted for the revision petitioner
till 30.07.2025 to surrender before the
trial Court to serve the balance sentence.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3372
HC-KAR
Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records
with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified
conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V. SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
SBS
CT:PK
