Karnataka High Court

Hanumanthappa S/O. Ningappa Hallalli vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2025

Author: V.Srishananda

Bench: V.Srishananda

                                                       -1-
                                                                   NC: 2025:KHC-D:4425
                                                             CRL.RP No. 100298 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.100298 OF 2017
                                    (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))

                       BETWEEN:

                       HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA HALLALLI,
                       AGE: MAJOR, OCC. DRIVER,
                       R/O. CHIKKAHARALAHALLI,
                       TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI.
                                                                           ...PETITIONER
                       (BY SRI M.H. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                       AND:

                       THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                       BY RANEBENNUR RURAL POLICE,
                       R/BY. THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                       HIGH COURT BENCH, DHARWAD.
                                                                         ...RESPONDENT
                       (BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
         Digitally
         signed by V
VN
         N BADIGER
BADIGER Date:
                             THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
        2025.03.11
         14:27:39
         +0530
                       SECTION 397 (1) READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO
                       SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT PASSED
                       BY THE TRIAL COURT IN CRL.APPEAL NO.22 OF 2014 DATED
                       30.08.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
                       JUDGE, HAVERI SITTING AT RANEBENNUR AND ALSO TO SET ASIDE
                       THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE PRL.
                       SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, RANEBENNUR IN C.C.NO.189 OF
                       2009 DATED 11.04.2014 BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE
                       CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM BY SETTING THEM AT LIBERTY.

                            THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, ORDER
                       WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                      -2-
                                                  NC: 2025:KHC-D:4425
                                           CRL.RP No. 100298 of 2017




                             ORAL ORDER

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

1. Heard Sri.M.H.Patil, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned

High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in

C.C.No.189/2009 which was confirmed in

Crl.A.No.22/2014 is the revision petitioner.

3. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision

petition are as under:

4. A complaint came to be lodged by Rural Police

Station, Ranebennur contending that on 27.04.2009 at

about 2.00 PM, in Kudrihal village road proceeding from

Heeladahalli towards Kudrihal, revision petitioner being the

driver of a Tractor and Trailer bearing registration

No.KA-27/T-8708-8357 drove the same in a rash and

negligent manner and having lost control over the said

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4425

vehicle. As such there was an accident, wherein vehicle

got turtled down resulting in death of Fakirawwa Mevundi,

Ratnawwa Dandinavar and Fakiresh Nanapur, who are

inmates of Trailer and few other inmates have suffered

grievous injuries and on based on the said complaint,

Ranebennur Ruler Police registered the case and

thoroughly investigated and filed charge sheet against the

accused.

5. Admittedly, accused did not possess the driving

license to drive the Tractor.

6. After due trial, accused was convicted for the

offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and

304(A) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') and

sentence as under:

"Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 is hereby held guilty for the offences punishable under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC and is accordingly convicted for the said offences.

The accused is hereby sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of one year and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4425

the offence punishable U/S 304-A of IPC and in default he shall further undergo S.I for two months.

He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.700/-, I/D to undergo S.I for two months for the offence U/S 279 of IPC.

He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, I/D to undergo S.I for one month for the offence U/S 337 of IPC.

He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.700/-, I/D to undergo S.I for six months for the offence U/S 338 of IPC.

The accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.400/-, I/D he shall undergo a S.I for a period of fifteen days for the offence U/S 3(1) r/w Sec. 181 of M.V Act.

However, the accused acquitted U/S 255(1) of Cr.P.C for the offence U/S 134(a) &

(b) r/w Sec. 187 of M.V Act.

His bail bond and surety bond hereby stand canceled.

              The     above     sentences     shall   run
          concurrently."

7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an

appeal before the District Court. Learned District judge

after hearing the parties in detail and after securing the

records by judgment dated 30.08.2017 dismissed the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4425

appeal of the accused confirming the conviction and

sentence.

8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is

before this court in this revision petition.

9. Sri M.H.Patil, learned counsel for the revision

petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision

petition, vehemently contended that incident had occurred

at the spur of the moment and the inmates of the Trailer

had not taken necessary precautions to properly sit in the

Trailer. Therefore, negligence cannot be attributed to be

accused and sought for allowing the revision petition.

10. Alternatively, Sri.M.H.Patil, learned counsel for

the revision petitioner would contend that in the event this

Court upholding the order of conviction, enhancing the fine

amount sentence may be set aside.

11. Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent-State supports the

impugned judgment.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4425

12. She would further contend that admittedly,

accused did not possess the driving license to drive Tractor

and Trailer unit and material evidence placed on record,

especially the oral testimony of the injured witnesses

would make it clear that the incident is occurred solely on

the negligent driving of the accused and thus sought for

dismissal of the revision petitioner.

13. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned,

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-

State would contend that three valuable lives have been

lost in the incident and few other persons were injured in

the incident. Therefore, revision petition needs to be

dismissed in toto.

14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this

Court perused the material on record meticulously.

15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is

crystal clear that the conviction of the revision petitioner is

based on sound and logical reasons, especially placing

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4425

reliance on the oral testimony of the prosecution

witnesses.

16. It is settled principles of law and requires no

emphasis that the oral testimony of the injured

eyewitnesses must be kept on higher pedestal. Further, no

explanation is offered by the accused while recording the

accused statement to place the version of the accused

with regard to the incident. Therefore, the trial judge had

no alternative but to convict the accused.

17. Having regard to the limited scope of the

revisional jurisdiction, this court is of the considered

opinion that materials on record do not warrant

interference with the order of conviction of the accused for

the aforesaid offences.

18. This would take this Court to the next limb of

the argument advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner

namely modification of the sentence.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4425

19. As is rightly contended on behalf of the State,

there are three valuable lives that have been lost few

other inmates of trailer also got injured.

20. However, taking note of the fact that the width

of the road and admittedly, the inmates who are traveling

in the Trailer by sitting inside the Trailer, if the sentences

is reduced from one year to 9 months, ends of justice

would be met following dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi 1.

21. Accordingly, in view of the forgoing discussion,

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 304A of the IPC and 3(1) read with

(2015) 5 SCC 182

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4425

section 181 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, the sentence ordered for major offence under Section 304(A) of the IPC is modified by directing the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of nine months instead of one year.