Karnataka High Court
Narayan S/O Dodda Ramayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3438
CRL.RP No. 200096 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200096 OF 2020
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
NARAYAN S/O DODDA RAMAYYA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND DRIVER,
R/O RAJOLLI VILLAGE, TQ. MANVI,
DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed R/BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH KALABURAGI BENCH-584106.
COURT OF (THROUGH MANVI P.S.).
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ARATI PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
21.10.2020 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR IN CRL.A.NO.43/2017 AND
FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 23.10.2017
PASSED BY THE JMFC AT MANVI IN C.C.NO.26/2013 FOR THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3438
CRL.RP No. 200096 of 2020
HC-KAR
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279, 304(A) OF IPC
AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.
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)
Heard Sri. Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, learned counsel
for the petitioner and learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondent-State.
2. Accused is the revision petitioner, who suffered
an order of conviction in C.C.No.26/2013 for the offences
under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (for
short, 'IPC'), and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment
for two years for the offence under Section 304A of IPC.
3. The validity of order of conviction and sentence
was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Criminal
Appeal No.43/2017. Learned Trial Judge in the First
Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3438
HC-KAR
arguments of the parties and by a Judgment dated
21.10.2020, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of
conviction and sentence.
4. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused
is before this Court in this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the
grounds urged in the revision petition contended that, the
learned Trial Judge has miserably failed to appreciate the
material evidence placed on record and wrongly convicted
the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition.
6. Alternatively, Sri Shivanand Pattanashetti, would
contend that, in the event this Court upholding the order of
conviction, sentence of two years for the offence under
Section 304A of IPC may be set aside by enhancing the fine
amount and to that extent, the revision petition may be
allowed.
7. Per contra, Smt. Arati Patil, learned High Court
Government Pleader supports the impugned Judgments by
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3438
HC-KAR
contending that, in the case on hand, the death of
Sri. Mallesh is not in dispute as per the postmortem report at
Ex.P.6. Sri. Mallesh, who was moving on the motorcycle lost
his life. Therefore, the grounds urged in the revision petition
cannot be countenanced in law.
8. Further, she contended that, there was no
explanation whatsoever offered by the accused in respect of
the incident, whereby the trolley of the tractor being driven
by the accused, dashed against the motorcycle, resulting in
the incident and in the absence of any such explanation, the
conviction order needs to be maintained.
9. Insofar as alternative submission is concerned,
Smt. Arati, learned High Court Government Pleader,
contended that, in the absence of any explanation, learned
Trial Judge was justified in granting punishment of two years
for the offence under Section 304A of IPC and sought for
dismissal of the revision petition.
10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, in
the case on hand, road traffic accident occurred on
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3438
HC-KAR
31.10.2012 at about 6.30 a.m. on Adavikhanapur-Aroli
Road, near the agricultural land of Virupakshappagouda
involving a tractor-trailer and a motorcycle is not in
dispute.
11. Because of the impact of the accident, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries on the head and the
brain had protruded from the skull and the eyeballs were
also protruded from the original position. The accident was
reported by an eyewitness to the family members of the
deceased. Postmortem report marked at Ex.P.6 makes it
clear about the injuries sustained and death is on account
of the accidental injuries.
12. Admittedly the revision petitioner was the driver
of the tractor and trolley. Police after thorough
investigation, filed the chargesheet. Chargesheet is not
challenged by the accused.
13. Further, an eyewitness to the incident is a
stranger and did not nurture any previous enmity or
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3438
HC-KAR
animosity as against the accused, has supported the case
of the prosecution with graphic details in toto.
14. Taking note of these aspects of the matter,
learned Trial Magistrate and the learned Judge in the First
Appellate Court were justified in recording an order of
conviction against the accused for the offences under
Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.
15. Having said thus, it is to be noticed that as per
the photo and the sketch, the trailer of the tractor has hit
the motorcycle. That means to say, the tractor had already
passed the motorcyclist and it is only the hind side of the
trailer, which struck into the motorcycle and then the
accident has occurred.
16. Even then, there is a negligence on the part of
the driver of the tractor to drive properly expecting that if
he steers the tractor, trailer is likely to move sideward and
hit the other vehicles on the road.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3438
HC-KAR
17. Therefore, taking note of these aspects of the
matter, maximum punishment of two years for the offence
under Section 304A of IPC cannot be sustained and it
needs to be reduced to six months following the dictum of
the Honourable Apex Court in the case of State of
Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC
182.
18. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion,
the following:
ORDER
(a) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in
part.
(b) While maintaining the conviction of the
accused for the offences under Sections
279 and 304A of IPC, the sentence of
imprisonment ordered by the Trial
Magistrate and confirmed by the First
Appellate Court for the offence punishable
under Section 304A of IPC for a period of
two years is reduced to six months.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3438
HC-KAR
(c) Rest of the sentence stands unaltered.
(d) Time is granted for the revision petitioner
to surrender before the Trial Court for
serving remaining part of the sentence till
30.07.2025.
(e) Office is directed to return the Trial Court
records with a copy of this order forthwith
for issue of modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
SVH/RSP
CT:PK
