Karnataka High Court

Maktumhussain S/O Gudusab Taralagatta vs The State By Cpi on 11 March, 2025

Author: V.Srishananda

Bench: V.Srishananda

                                                      -1-
                                                                  NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641
                                                            CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2017




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                            DHARWAD BENCH

                                 DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                                    BEFORE

                                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

                            CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100237 OF 2017
                                       (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))

                          BETWEEN:

                          MAKTUMHUSSAIN S/O. GUDUSAB TARALAGATTA,
                          AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
                          R/O. DEVAGIRI, TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI.
                                                                          ...PETITIONER
                          (BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
                              SRI M. H. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                          AND:

                          THE STATE BY CPI
                          HANAGAL POLICE STATION,
                          R/BY. S.P.P., KARNATAKA HIGH COURT,
                          BENCH AT DHARWAD.
          Digitally                                                      ...RESPONDENT
          signed by V N
VN        BADIGER         (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
          Date:
BADIGER   2025.03.20
          12:39:23
          +0530
                                THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
                          SECTION 397 (1) READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
                          SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY HON'BLE PRL. SESSIONS
                          JUDGE, HAVERI IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2016 DATED 19.06.2017
                          AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PAPSSED BY
                          THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HANGAL IN C.C.NO.
                          230 OF 2008 DATED 08.01.2016 BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION
                          PETITION BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED FOR THE
                          OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 304(A) OF IPC
                          AND UNDER SECTIONS 134(A) (B) READ WITH SECTION 187 OF MV
                          ACT.
                                THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
                          ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                 -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641
                                      CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2017




                            ORAL ORDER

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

Heard Sri.Harshavardhan M. Patil, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of Sri.M.H.patil, learned counsel for

the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveen Devareddiyavara,

learned High Court Government Pleader for the

State/respondent.

2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in

CC no.230/2008 for the offences punishable under Section

279, 337, 304A of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) read

with Section 187 of IMV Act has been sentenced as under

which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.08/2016 is the revision

petitioner:

"Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 304A of IPC and Section 134(A)(B) R/w 187 of MV Act.

An accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.700/- for offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. In default of

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641

payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days.

An accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.300/- for an offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 4 days.

An accused is sentenced to undergo S.I for one year for an offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 5 days.

An accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.100/- for an offence punishable under Section 134 (A) (B) read with 187 of I.M.V.Act. In default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 day."

3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for

disposal of the revision petition are as under:

3.1. In respect of road traffic accident that occurred

on 23.12.2007, Hangal Town Police registered a case

against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

3.2. Complaint averments would reveal that on

23.12.2007 at about 2.00 p.m., accused being the driver

of three wheeler goods vehicle bearing registration

No.KA.25.B.1017 driven the same in a rash and negligent

manner and when the vehicle reached near the Kotanahalli

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641

cross towards Akki Alur road, vehicle toppled down as a

result, complainant and three other persons who were

travelling in the said goods vehicle, has sustained simple

and grievous injuries. One of the injured person

thereafter succumbed to the injury.

3.3. Therefore, after thorough investigation, charge

sheet came to be filed against the accused person for the

aforesaid offences.

4. Learned Trial Judge after taking cognizance

conducted the trial and after due trial, convicted the

accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as

referred to supra.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an

appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.8/2016.

6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after

securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties

in detail and dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order

of conviction and sentence.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641

7. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is

before this Court, in this revision.

8. Sri.Harshavardhan M. Patil, learned counsel

reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition

vehemently contended that incident is beyond the human

control having regard to the sloppy road and on account of

applying the break to avoid the dangerous event as

suddenly there was a person who crossed the road.

Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the

revision petitioner which has been ignored by the learned

Trial Judge and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court

mechanically confirmed the order of conviction and sought

for allowing the revision petition.

9. Alternatively, he contended that in the event,

this Court upholding the order of conviction, sentence of

imprisonment may be set aside by enhancing the fine

amount.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641

10. Sri.Praveen Y. Devareddyavar, learned High

Court Government Pleader supports the impugned

judgments by contending that admittedly, it is the

negligence of the driver of the three wheeler vehicle

resulted in accident.

11. He would further contend that without

attending the injured or without intimating the police

about the incident, accused ran away from the spot which

will disentitle the accused to obtain any leniency from this

Court and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in

toto.

12. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court

perused the material on record meticulously.

13. On such perusal of the material on record,

following points would arise for consideration:

1. Whether the petitioner makes out a case that impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus, calls for interference?

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641

2. Whether the sentence is excessive?

3. What order?

REG.POINT Nos.1 AND 2:

14. In the case on hand, death of one of the

inmates of the three wheeler bearing No.KA.25.B.1070 is

not in dispute in view of the post-mortem report marked

at Ex.P.10. Wound certificates of Mallanagouda, Riyaz

Ahmed and Rajesad Moulasab, issued by the Doctor who is

examined as P.W.6 would make it clear that other inmates

have also sustained injuries.

15. Further, injured passengers were also examined

before the Court as P.W.2 to 4. It is to be borne in mind

that testimony of the injured witnesses should be kept on

higher pedestal and their testimony would be sufficient in

adjudging the guilt of the accused. More so, when they

did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity against

the accused to falsely implicate him.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641

16. Crowing all these matters, there was no

explanation offered by the accused with regard to the

incident while recording the accused statement.

17. Taking note of the principles of law enunciated

by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Ravi Kapoor v. State

of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2012 SC 2986, in the

absence of any explanation offered by the accused,

learned Trial Judge recorded an order of conviction holding

that accused is responsible for the accidental death of

Shivabasappa in the road traffic accident involving three

wheeler vehicle bearing No.KA.25.B.1070 is just and

proper.

18. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court

rightly reappreicated the material evidence while

upholding the order of conviction.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641

19. Therefore, having regard to the limited

revisional jurisdiction, this court cannot record different

finding than that of the Courts below while upholding the

order of conviction.

20. However, taking note of the fact that

Shivabasappa had travelled in a three wheeler, which is

admittedly a goods vehicle, this Court is of the considered

opinion that imposing one year imprisonment for the

offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC needs to be

reduced to six months taking note of the principles of law

enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State

of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC

182.

21. In view of the foregoing discussions, point No.1

is answered in negative and 2 in partly affirmative.

REG.POINT No.3:

22. In view of the finding of this Court on point

Nos.1 and 2 as above, following:

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4641

ORDER

i. Criminal revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner, sentence ordered by the learned Trial Judge is reduced from one year to six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/-.

iii. Time is granted to pay the enhanced fine amount till 15.04.2025 failing which the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment as ordered by the learned Trial Judge.

iv. Out of the fine amount recovered, enhanced fine amount of Rs.25,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the dependants of Shivabasappa under due identification.