Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj S/O Sahadevappa Kamannavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419
CRL.RP No. 100160 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100160 OF 2017
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJ S/O. SAHADEVAPPA KAMANNAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. LORRY DRIVER,
R/O. BAMMASAMUDRA, HUBBALLI,
TALUK: HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD,
Digitally
signed by V
THROUGH SHIGGAON P.S., DIST. HAVERI.
VN
N BADIGER
BADIGER Date:
2025.03.14
...RESPONDENT
15:18:11
+0530 (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW
THE REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE I ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT HAVERI IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2011 DATED 27.10.2016 IN CONFIRMING
THE ORDER PASSES BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
SHIGGAON IN C.C. NO. 38 OF 2008 DATED 02.05.2011 FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 338
AND 304(A) OF IPC AND ALSO UNDER SECTION 134 (a) AND
(b) READ WITH 187 OF M.V. ACT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419
CRL.RP No. 100160 of 2017
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri.Praveen kumar G. counsel for Sri.Anand R.
Kolli, counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena
Y. Devareddiyavara, learned HCGP for respondent State.
2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in
CC No.38/2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC.,
Shiggaon for the offence punishable under Sections 279,
337, 338, 304(A) of IPC R/W Section 134(a) and (b) R/W
187 of the Indian Motor vehicles Act which was confirmed
in Crl.A.No.23/2011 has preferred the present revision
petition.
3. Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the
appeal are as under:
3.1 Complaint came to be lodged with Shiggon Police
contending that on 22.03.2007 at about 1.15 p.m.,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419
revision petitioner being the driver of the canter lorry
bearing No.KA-25/B-6864 was proceeding from Hubballi to
Haveri and near Kamanahalli village, when he drove the
said lorry in a rash and negligent manner, he dashed
against the three wheeler (goods vehicle) bearing No.KA-
27/9102 on the hind side whereby the inmates of the said
goods vehicle suffered simple and grievous injuries and
one among them viz., Nagappa Jadhav succumbed to the
injuries while taking to the hospital. Another injured by
name Jotheppa Yallappa Kondai succumbed to the injuries
despite best treatment on 05.04.2007 at KIMS Hospital,
Hubballi. Accused after the incident, left the injured
persons unattended escaped away from the place, not
even intimating the incident to the Police.
4. Based on the complaint, police registered the
case under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304 A r/w Sec.134
and 134 and 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act and after
detailed investigation filed charge sheet against the
accused.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419
5. Learned trial Magistrate after taking cognizance,
secured the presence of the accused and recorded the plea
of the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial
was held.
6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused,
prosecution examined 16 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.16 and
placed on record 25 documents which are exhibited and
marked as Ex.P1 to P25.
7. After conclusion of recording of evidence,
accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313
of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein accused persons have
denied all the incriminating materials but failed to place on
record, any written submissions about the incident as is
contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C. nor placed
any defense evidence on record.
8. Thereafter, learned trial Judge heard the
arguments of the parties and by considered judgment
dated 02.05.2011 convicted the accused for the aforesaid
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419
offences and for the offence under Section 279 of IPC, 3
months imprisonment was granted and fine of Rs.900 with
default sentence and for the offence under Section 337 of
IPC, Rs.400/- fine and one month simple imprisonment
with default sentence and for the offence under Section
338 of IPC, trial judge imposed three months
imprisonment and Rs.900/- fine and for the offence under
Section 304A IPC one year simple imprisonment was
ordered. For offence under the Indian Motor Vehicles Act,
trial judge only imposed the fine amount.
9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an
appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.23/2011.
10. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court, after
securing the records heard the parties in detail and re-
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed on
record in a cumulative manner dismissed the appeal by
considered judgment dated 27.10.2016.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419
11. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is
before this Court.
12. Sri.Praveen kumar, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the
revision petition, vehemently contended that the learned
trial judge has not properly appreciated the material
evidence placed on record and wrongly convicted the
accused which has been mechanically confirmed by the
learned judge in the First Appellate Court resulting in
miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the petition.
13. He would further contend that the driver of the
three wheeler has specifically admitted in his oral evidence
that six quintals of vegetable were loaded in the three
wheeler apart from nine passengers found in the said
vehicle and the permissible capacity is only driver and one
labour with goods. Therefore, there was a contributory
negligence on the part of the three wheeler and police
have not properly investigated the matter and filed charge
sheet against the driver of the canter resulting in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419
miscarriage of justice and therefore sought for allowing
the revision petition.
14. He would also contend that the width of the
road was not sufficient enough to avoid the accident and
therefore there was no negligence on the part of the
accused but it was beyond human control and sought for
considering the said aspect in this revision petition and set
aside the order of conviction.
15. Alternatively, Sri.Praveen Kumar would contend
that in the event, this Court upholding the order of
conviction, by enhancing the fine amount sentence of
imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A of IPC
and other offences needs to be set aside.
16. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara,
learned High Court Government Pleader supported the
impugned orders. He would further contend that
admittedly charge sheet came to be filed against the
driver of the canter vehicle and in the absence of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419
challenge to the charge sheet, the arguments put forth on
behalf of the revision petitioner for the first time before
this Court regarding contributory negligence cannot be
countenanced in law.
17. He further submitted that the material placed
on record goes to show that the width of the road was
sufficiently wide and admittedly, with the six quintals of
vegetable three wheeler was moving in the slow pace.
Merely, on the fact that the nine persons were traveling in
the auto rickshaw would not be ipso facto make out the
case that the driver of the three wheeler is responsible for
the accident.
18. Further, learned High Court Government
Pleader would contend that material evidence had been
rightly appreciated by the learned trial judge while passing
the order of conviction for the offence under Section 304A
IPC, as two death have taken place, while maintaining the
conviction no mercy or leniency can be shown to the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419
accused and thus sought for dismissal of the revision
petition in toto.
19. Having heard the arguments of both sides, the
following points would arise for consideration.
1) Whether revision petitioner makes out a
case that the impugned judgments are
suffering from legal infirmity and perversity
and thus call for interference?
2) Whether sentence needs modification?
3) What order?
20. In the case on hand, accident that took place on
22.03.2007 near Kamanahalli at about 1.15 p.m involving
canter lorry bearing No.KA-25/B-6864 and three wheeler
bearing No.KA 27/9102 is established by placing cogent
and convincing evidence on record. Due to the impact of
the accident Nagappa Jadhav last his life enroute the
hospital and another injured namely Joteppa Yallappa
Kondai succumbed to the injuries on 05.04.2007 at KIMS
Hospital.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419
21. Accused being driver of the canter lorry bearing
No. KA-25/B-6864 as on the date of accident is not in
dispute. Admittedly, after the accident, he did not take
any steps to shift the injured to the hospital nor intimated
the incident to the Police. Instead he escaped away from
the spot. The other convectors of the same road have
taken steps to shift the injured to the hospital.
22. Eye witnesses who are also injured have
supported the case of the prosecution in toto.
23. Further, Police after thorough investigation
noted that width of the road was sufficiently wide and
accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving
of the canter lorry by the accused and filed charge sheet.
As is rightly contend on behalf of the prosecution, charge
sheet was not challenged nor any contributory negligence
was noticed by the investigating agency during the
investigation.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419
24. Further, mere transporting six quintals of
vegetables along with nine persons would not ipso facto
result as contributory negligence on the part of the driver
of the three wheeler. Pertinently, no explanation
whatsoever is furnished on behalf of the accused with
regard to the incident.
25. In a matter of this nature, the accused is bound
to place his version about the incident atleast at the time
of recording the accused statement. If he deliberately fails
to do so, consequences in law has follow as is held in the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.P.
Kapur vs. State of Punjab1.
26. On reconsideration of the material evidence on
record in the light of the above judgment, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the conviction of the accused
for the aforesaid offences needs no interference that too in
the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, point No.1 is
answered in the negative.
AIR 1960 SCC 866
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419
Regarding Point No.2.
27. In the case on hand, two valuable lives have
been lost and few others have been injured. Taking note of
the same, learned trial judge has granted only one year
imprisonment for the highest offence under Section 304A
IPC which requires no interference by this Court.
Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the negative.
Regarding point No.3.
28. In view of the finding of this Court on point
Nos.1 and 2 as above, the following:
ORDER
(i) Revision petition is meritless and is hereby
dismissed.
(ii) Time is granted to the revision petitioner to
surrender before the Court for serving remaining part of
the sentence by 30.03.2025.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4419
(iii) Office is directed to return the trial court records
with copy of this order.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
HMB
CT:PA
