Dundappa vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 4732 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Dundappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2025

Author: V.Srishananda

Bench: V.Srishananda

                                                       -1-
                                                                   NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330
                                                             CRL.RP No. 100115 of 2016




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                          DHARWAD BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                                  BEFORE

                              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

                         CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100115 OF 2016
                                    (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))

                       BETWEEN:

                       DUNDAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA LINGARADDI,
                       AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                       R/O: GULAGALJAMBAGI, TQ: MUDHOL,
                       DIST: BAGALKOTE.
                                                                           ...PETITIONER
                       (BY SRI K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                       AND:

                       THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                       BY LOKAPUR P.S.,
                       REP. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                       BENCH AT DHARWAD.
                                                                         ...RESPONDENT
         Digitally
                       (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
         signed by V
         N BADIGER
VN
BADIGER Date:
        2025.03.12
         10:31:54
         +0530
                            THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 AND
                       401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THER RECORDS IN
                       C.C.NO.582/2008 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED ADDL. JMFC MUDHOL,
                       ALLOW THIS CR.R.P. BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
                       ORDER DTD. 30.04.2016 BY THE 1ST ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS
                       JUDGE,    BAGALKOTE     SITTING     AT    JAMAKHANDI    IN
                       CRL.APL.NO.68/2013 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL AND TO
                       SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DTD.20.06.2013 PASSED IN
                       C.C.NO. 582/2008 BY THE LEARNED ADDL. JMFC, MUDHOL, FOR
                       OFFENCES P/U/SECTIONS 279, 337, 338 AND 304(A) OF IPC.

                           THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
                       ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                               -2-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330
                                    CRL.RP No. 100115 of 2016




                          ORAL ORDER

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

Heard Sri.K.L.Patil, learned counsel for the revision

petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned

High Court Government Pleader for the parties.

2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in

CC No.582/2008 and sentenced as under; has preferred

this revision petition.

::ORDER::

"Acting under Sec.255 (2) of Cr.P.C. Accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.279 of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of 6 months and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall further undergo S.I. for a period of 1 month.

Acting under Sec.255 (2) of Cr.P.C. Accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.337 of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of 3 months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall further undergo S.I. for a period of 1 month.

Acting under Sec.255 (2) of Cr.P.C. Accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.338 of IPC and

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330

sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of 6 months and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall further undergo S.I. for a period of 1 month.

Acting under Sec.255 (2) of Cr.P.C. Accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.304(A) of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of 1 year and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall further undergo S.I. for a period of 3 months.

Acting U/sec.428 of Cr.P.C. the period undergone by the accused if any in the Judicial Custody is hereby given set-off.

The interim custody of vehicle Tractor Bearing No.KA-48 T 2183 and Trailer No.KA- 28 T 2184 is already released are made absolute.

Supply free copy of Judgment to the accused.

The MO.1 to 3 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over."

3. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision

petition are as under:

4. On 15.08.2008 at about 7.00 p.m., within the

limits of the Lokapur Police Station on Bagalkot road,

accused being the driver of Tractor bearing registration

No.KA-48/T-2183 drove the same in a rash and negligent

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330

manner and because of his negligence driving, hind side

of Trailer hit the milestone which was erected on left side

of the road. As a result, Trailer turtled; the complainant

and 43 other persons who are standing by the side of the

road waiting for the vehicle, have suffered simple injuries

and grievous injuries. One among them namely Jayashree

D/o Rudrappa Chavan who sustained grievous injuries on

the way to Lokapur Government Hospital, succumbed to

the injuries at about 8.00 p.m.

5. Based on the complaint lodged by one of the

injured, the police registered the case for the offences

punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of

the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') and conducted

detailed investigation interalia collected the wound

certificated and post mortem report of the Jayashree D/o

Rudrappa Chavan and filed the charge sheet against the

accused persons.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330

6. Presence of the accused was secured by the

trial magistrate and after due trial, he was convicted for

the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused

preferred an appeal before the District Court in

Crl.A.No.68/2013.

8. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court

after securing the records, heard the arguments parties in

detail in the light of the appeal grounds and on re-

appreciation of the material evidence placed on record,

dismissed the appeal by considered judgment dated

30.04.2016.

9. Being further aggrieved by the same, the

accused is before this Court in this revision petition.

10. Sri.K.L.Patil, learned counsel for the revision

petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision

petition, vehemently contended that the material evidence

placed on record is not properly appreciated by the both

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330

the courts while recording the order of conviction of the

revision petitioner resulting in miscarriage of justice and

sought for allowing the revision petition.

11. He would further contend that investigation

officer clearly admitted that there was no milestone on the

left side of the road. But he has admitted that there is

milestone on the right side of the road. Therefore, very

genesis of the prosecution case itself is doubtful and how

exactly the Trailer got turtled is not established by the

prosecution. He further argued that at any rate, the

material on record would not be sufficient enough to infer

the existence of negligence on the part of the revision

petitioner in the incident and therefore, sought for allowing

the revision petition.

12. Sri.K.L.Patil, would also contend that very fact

that the injured persons were standing on the road is lost

sight of by investigation agency which has been not

properly appreciated by the learned trial judge and learned

judge in the First Appellate Court, whereby there could not

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330

have been any negligence attributable to the petitioner

who was the driver of the Tractor and thus sought for

allowing the revision petition.

13. Alternatively, Sri.K.L.Patil would submit that in

the event this Court upholding the order of conviction for

the aforesaid offences, taking note of the fact that it is the

revision petitioner who took immediate steps in shifting

the injured persons to the medical care including the

Jayashree D/o Rudrappa Chavan, who was sustained

grievous injuries, and succumbed to the injuries, sentence

of imprisonment may be set aside by enhancing the fine

amount in reasonable manner and sought for allowing the

revision petition.

14. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Devareddyavar,

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-

State, would support the impugned judgments. He would

further contend that material evidence placed on record

especially, the wound certificate of the injured persons

who have also been examined before the trial court, some

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330

of them have been examined before the court would make

it clear that the negligent driving of the Tractor by the

revision petitioner has resulted in the incident, where

under all the 43 persons who have standing on the road

got injured.

15. He would further contend that one among them

namely Jayashree D/o Rudrappa Chavan sustained

grievous injuries and she lost her life while shifting her to

the Lokapur Government Hospital. Therefore, the

contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioner that

there was no negligence on the part of the revision

petitioner cannot be countenanced in law.

16. Sri.Praveena Devareddayavar, would further

contend that alternate submission of the revision

petitioner cannot also be considered for simple reason that

43 persons are the victims in the incident and one among

them having lost the life, the sentence ordered by the trial

judge and confirmed by the first appellate court needs no

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330

interference that too revisional jurisdiction and sought for

dismissal of the revision petition in toto.

17. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this

Court perused the material on record meticulously. On

such perusal of the material on record, following points

would arise for consideration:

i. Whether revision petitioner makes out the case that the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity, or factual error, so as to seek interference from this Court?

ii. Whether the sentence needs modification?

iii. What order?

REGARDING POINT NO.1:

18. In the case on hand, the road traffic accident

had occurred on Bagalkot-lokapur road on 15.08.2008 at

about 7:00 p.m., involving the Tractor bearing registration

No.KA-48/T-2183 is established. The revision petitioner

being the driver of the said Tractor is also not in dispute.

19. According to prosecution, because of the rash

and negligent driving, hind portion of the Trailer got in

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330

contact with the milestone and it got turtled. However,

material evidence placed on record, especially the

admission made by investigation officer would show that

no such milestone was existing on the left side of the road.

20. Pertinently, it is to be noted that in a matter of

this nature, accused is also expected to spell out his

version about the incident. Under Section 106 of the

Indian Evidence Act, accused is also bound to place on

record, the special knowledge which he possessed about

the incident, which is in his exclusive knowledge to arrive

at just decision in the matter.

21. Further non explanation to incriminating

circumstances nor placing version of the accused in a

given case of this nature, consequences in law has to

follow.

22. View of this Court in this regard is fortified by

the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the Case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan1. In

(2012) 9 SCC 284

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330

the said judgment gainfully this Court culls out para 39

which reads as under:

"39. It is true that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but the provisions of Section 313 CrPC are not a mere formality or purposeless. They have a dual purpose to discharge, firstly, that the entire material parts of the incriminating evidence should be put to the accused in accordance with law and, secondly, to provide an opportunity to the accused to explain his conduct or his version of the case. To provide this opportunity to the accused is the mandatory duty of the court. If the accused deliberately fails to avail this opportunity, then the consequences in law have to follow, particularly when it would be expected of the accused in the normal course of conduct to disclose certain facts which may be within his personal knowledge and have a bearing on the case."

23. Thus, from the totality of the material evidence

especially the testimony of the injured witnesses and other

attendant facts and circumstances of the case including

I.M.V report which shows that there was no mechanical

defect in the offending Tractor, the conviction of the

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330

revision petitioner for the offence punishable under

Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) IPC, needs no

interference in the revisional jurisdiction.

24. In view of the forgoing discussion, the point

No.1 is answered in the negative.

REGARDING POINT NO.2:

25. One factor which has been missed the notice of

the trial court as well as the first appellate Court is the

conduct of the accused soon after the incident. In a matter

of this nature, usually, the driver who is responsible for

the road traffic accident would run way from the spot

without attending the injured pr intimating the incident to

the Police.

26. In the case of hand, the revision petitioner

noticing that the incident has occurred resulting in several

persons being injured, stood on the spot and lent his

helping hand in shifting the injured persons, especially

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330

Jayashree D/o Rudrappa Chavan who had been sustained

grievous injuries.

27. No doubt because of the grievous hurt that has

caused to the Jayashree D/o Rudrappa Chavan, she

succumbed to the injuries. Said conduct of the accused in

shifting the injured to the hospital and not running way

from the spot and escaping from rigors of law would be a

factor which needs to be taken into consideration while

passing the appropriate and adequate sentence in the case

on hand.

28. Since this aspect of the matter has not been

taken into consideration by both the courts while passing

the sentence, instead of remitting the matter to the trial

court at this distance of time, only for purpose of passing

an appropriate sentence by rehearing the parties would

result in futile exercise.

29. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that in a

matter of this nature, especially taking note of the

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330

galloping trend of the road traffic accident resulting in loss

of precious human life, the sentence that should be

granted in a given case of this nature should not only be

adequate but should also act as deterrent.

30. This Court has taken notice principles of law

enunciated in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh

Bakshi2 in this regard.

31. Thus, from totality of the circumstance

especially the peculiar facts and circumstances that exist

in the case on hand, while passing the appropriate and

adequate sentence in the case on hand, the conduct of the

revision petitioner cannot be lost sight.

32. Therefore, if the sentence ordered by the trial

magistrate and confirmed by the first appellate Court is

reduced from 1 year to 6 months by enhancing the fine

amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- which is payable as

compensation to the dependents of Jayashree D/o

(2015) 5 SCC 182

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330

Rudrappa Chavan would meet the ends of justice in the

case on hand. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly

in the affirmative.

REGARDING POINT NO.3:

33. In view of the findings of this Court on points

No.1 and 2 as above, the following order is passed.

ORDER

(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) IPC, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC is reduced from 1 year to 6 months by enhancing the fine of Rs.25,000/- payable on or before 30.03.2025.

(iii) Failure to make the enhanced payment on or before 30.03.2025 would result in restoration of the jail sentence ordered by

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4330

the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

        (iv) Entire        enhanced              the    fine     amount,
                 Rs.25,000/-       is    ordered       to   be   paid   as
                 compensation           to       the   dependents       of

Jayashree D/o Rudrappa Chavan under due identification.

(v) Office to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant.

It is made clear that since the sentence ordered for the offence punishable under Sections 273, 338, 337 of the IPC is to run concurrently, the modified sentence shall also run concurrently.

SD/-

(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA