Karnataka High Court
Ravi @ Ravichandra vs The State Through East on 12 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4686
CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100257 OF 2016
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
RAVI @ RAVICHANDRA
S/O. BASAVARAJ LAKAMAPUR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE,
R/O. GULAGANJIKOPPA, GUDI ONI,
DHARWAD-580001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIJAY MALALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE THROUGH EAST TRAFFIC POLICE STATION,
HUBBALLI,
REP. BY THROUGH S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD BENCH.
Digitally
signed by V
N BADIGER
...RESPONDENT
VN
BADIGER Date:
2025.03.21
10:35:38
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
+0530
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.397 R/W.
401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE CONCERNED RECORDS
OF THE LOWER COURT AS WELL AS THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29/10/2014 PASSED
BY THE JMFC I COURT HUBBALLI IN C.C.NO.12/2013 AND TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30/06/2016 PASSED BY I
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DHARWAD SITTING AT
HUBBALI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 78/2014.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4686
CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2016
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri.Vijay Malali, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and Sri.Praveena Devareddiyavara, learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in
C.C.No.12/2013 whereby accused is convicted for the
offence under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC which was
confirmed in Crl.A.No.78/2014.
3. At the outset, Sri.Vijaya Malali would contend
that the conviction order is bad in law inasmuch as it is the
negligence of the deceased walking on the road and
therefore, revision petition needs to be allowed.
4. Alternatively, he would contend that in the
event, this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking
note of the fact that very accused himself shifted the
injured to Vivekananda Hospital and ultimately on account
of the head injury sustained by the injured, he succumbed
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4686
to the injuries and therefore the conduct of the petitioner
needs to be appreciated and instead of directing him to
undergo imprisonment, fine amount can be enhanced in a
reasonable sum and sentence of imprisonment may be set
aside, taking note of time of the accident is 4.45 am and it
was in the month of September-2012, where the fog
conditions would be there and visibility is poor.
5. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara,
learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the
revision grounds including the alternate submissions with
vehemence.
6. He would further contend that in the accused
statement, accused has denied all the incriminatory
circumstances and mitigating circumstances pleaded for
the first time before this Court, revision petition needs to
be dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4686
7. Having heard the arguments of both the sides
in detail, this Court perused the material on record
meticulously.
8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that accused was the driver of the car bearing
No.KA-25/C-5867 which dashed against the pedestrian
who was a police constable. Time of accident is around
4.45 am near railway gate on Gadag-Hubballi road. PW.3
is one of the inmates of the car, his evidence is placed on
record and appreciated by both the Courts for maintaining
the conviction.
9. On close scrutiny of his evidence, it is crystal
clear that he heard a loud sound near railway gate and
immediately he got down so also the other inmates. They
saw one person with bleeding injuries in police uniform.
Immediately, petitioner herein being the driver of the car
and others shifted the injured to Vivekananda Hospital in
the same car.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4686
10. Later on, despite best treatment, on account of
the heavy injuries sustained in the incident, injured
succumbed and case came to be registered against the
driver of the car for the offences punishable under
Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. Material evidence placed on
record is thus, sufficient enough to maintain the
conviction.
11. This would take this Court to the next limb of
argument of the counsel for the revision petitioner viz.,
quantum of sentence.
12. Taking note of the conduct of the petitioner
herein, in taking the injured in the very same car and
admitting him to Vivekananda Hospital, this Court is of the
considered opinion that discretionary powers vested in this
Court can be exercised in favour of the petitioner in
modifying the sentence ordered by the trial Magistrate and
confirmed by the judge in First Appellate Court by setting
aside the imprisonment period and enhancing the fine
amount in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- payable by the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4686
petitioner in two installments to the dependants of the
deceased.
13. Further, petitioner being the sole bread earner
and eking out his livelihood in a decent manner and having
a family to maintain is a factor that has been taken note of
by this Court while modifying the sentence.
14. In view of the foregoing discussions, the
following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for
the offences under Section 279 and 304A of IPC,
sentence ordered by the trial Magistrate and confirmed
by the First Appellate Court is modified as under:
(i) Jail sentence ordered by the learned trial
Magistrate for a period of one year for the offence
under Section 304A of IPC, which was modified in
appeal for a period of six months is hereby set aside by
directing the accused to pay enhanced fine amount of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4686
Rs.1,50,000/- to be payable in two installments to the
dependants of the deceased.
(ii) First installment of Rs.75,000/- is ordered to be
paid on or before 30.03.2025 and remaining sum of
Rs.75,000/- is ordered to be paid on or before
30.04.2025.
(iii) Failure to make the payment of enhanced fine
amount would result in automatically restoration of
sentence of six months modified by the First Appellate
Court.
(iv) After the receipt of fine amount, the entire sum
of Rs.1,50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation
to the dependants of the deceased under due
identification.
(v) Office is directed to return the trial Court
records with copy of this order for issuance of modified
conviction warrant.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
AC para 1 and 2
HMB
