Karnataka High Court

Sri. Mahammad Hanif Jainum Khalifa vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2025

Author: V.Srishananda

Bench: V.Srishananda

                                                   -1-
                                                                 NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492
                                                         CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2018




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                         DHARWAD BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                                BEFORE

                              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

                         CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100222 OF 2018
                                    (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))

                       BETWEEN:

                       SRI MAHAMMAD HANIF JAINUM KHALIFA
                       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. KSRTC DRIVER,
                       R/O. HALYAL ROAD, ATHANI, TQ. ATHANI,
                       DIST. BELAGAVI.
                                                                        ...PETITIONER
                       (BY SRI SUNIL KHOT, ADVOCATE FOR
                           SRI RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE)

                       AND:

                       THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                       THROUGH ATHANI PS, DIST. BELAGAVI,
                       NOW REP. BY S.P.P.,
                       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
         Digitally
                       DHARWAD BENCH.
         signed by V
VN
         N BADIGER                                                     ...RESPONDENT
BADIGER Date:
        2025.04.02
         11:20:35
         +0530
                       (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

                            THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W.
                       401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET
                       ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
                       DATED 26.12.2015 MADE IN C.C.NO.933/2011 PASSED BY THE I-
                       ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, ATHANI CONVICTING THE PETITIONER
                       FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 & 304-A OF
                       IPC AND SEC. 134 R/W. 187 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AND
                       SENTENCING TO UNDERGO SI FOR 4 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCES
                       PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 OF IPC AND SI FOR 6 MONTHS
                       FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304-A OF IPC
                       AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CONVICTION
                       DATED 26/12/2017 PASSED BY THE VII-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS
                                 -2-
                                                NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492
                                         CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2018




JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT CHIKODI IN CRL.A.NO.12/2016 AS
THE SAME BEING NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

                        ORAL ORDER

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

Heard Sri Sunil Khot for Sri Ramachandra A. Mali,

learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y.

Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader

for respondent.

2. Accused, who suffered an order of conviction in

C.C. No.933/2011 for the offence punishable under

Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter

referred to as 'IPC', for short) confirmed in

Crl.A.No.12/2016, is the revision petitioner.

3. Accused has been convicted for the for the

offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC

and sentenced as under:

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492

"The accused directed to under go SI for 4 months for the offence punishable u/s 279 of Indian Penal Code.

The accused directed to under go SI for 6 months for the offence punishable u/s 304(A) of Indian Penal Code.

The vehicles released in favour of applicants are made absolute."

4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost

necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are as

under:

4.1. Accused was the driver of bus bearing No.KA-

23/F-390 which was proceeding from Athani to Miraj. One

of the inmates of the bus Smt. Shobha Ramdas Mali was

required to get down from the bus near Mallayya Temple

cross. Accordingly, herself and other passengers made a

request to the conductor to stop the bus. The conductor

gave signal to stop the bus to the driver of the bus by

whistling. Accordingly, bus was stopped. Such of the

passengers, who are required to get down from the bus in

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492

the said stop, got down from the bus and Shobha being

the last passenger was getting down from the bus. At that

juncture, without noticing the same, driver of the bus

moved the bus in a negligent manner and whereby

Shobha fell down from the bus and sustained injuries.

Thereafter, on hearing hue and cry made by other inmates

of the bus, bus was stopped.

4.2. Injured - Shobha was shifted to Mangasuli

Hospital at the first instance. Later on, she was shifted to

Meeraj Hospital for higher medical care. Despite the

same, said Shobha did not survive and succumbed to the

injuries. As such, complaint came to be filed.

5. Police after thorough investigation, filed the

charge sheet against the revision petitioner.

6. After due trial, accused was convicted for the

aforesaid offence and sentenced as referred to supra.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492

7. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the same,

accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in

Crl.A.No.12/2016.

8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after

securing the records and reappreciated the material

evidence placed on record and upheld the order of

conviction and sentenced by dismissing the appeal filed by

the accused.

9. Being further aggrieved by the same, revision

petitioner is before this Court, in this revision.

10. Sri.Sunil Khot, learned counsel for the revision

petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision

petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have

not properly appreciated the material evidence placed on

record especially, the half supported deposition of the

conductor of the bus wherein he has not specifically stated

that he does not know the reason for the accident and

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492

convicted the accused resulted in miscarriage of justice

and sought for allowing the revision petition.

11. He would also contend that there was no nexus

established by the prosecution to the alleged road traffic

accident and death of Shobha and thus, sought for

allowing the revision petition.

12. He would also contend that in the event, this

Court, upholding the order of conviction, the sentence of

imprisonment may be reduced by enhancing the fine

amount.

13. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddyavara,

learned High Court Government Pleader for the

State/respondent supports the impugned judgments.

14. He would contend that conductor has

specifically stated that Shobha and others requested the

bus to be stopped near Mallayya temple cross and

accordingly, bus was stopped.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492

15. He would further contend that after the bus was

stopped, conductor has given the signal to move the bus

but in the process of alighting the bus, Shobha fell down

and conductor could hear the hue and cry and asked the

driver to stop the bus and noted Shobha got injured while

alighting the bus; which is sufficient enough to understand

that it is the accused who drove the bus without properly

verifying that all the passengers had alighted the bus near

Mallayya temple cross resulting in the accident on account

of negligent act attributable to the accused and sought for

dismissal of the revision petition.

16. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court

perused the material on record meticulously.

17. On such perusal of the material on record,

following points would arise for consideration:

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

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492

2. Whether the sentence is excessive?

3. What order?

REG.POINT No.1:

18. In the case on hand, revision petitioner being

the driver of bus bearing No.KA-23/F-390 on 17.04.2011,

driver of the bus who was plying from Athani to Miraj is

not in dispute. Bus was stopped near Mallayya temple

cross as per the instructions of the conductor/P.W.6.

19. After the bus was stopped, few passengers got

down from the bus and in the process of alighting from the

bus, Shobha got injured on account of the negligent

driving of the bus by the revision petitioner.

20. It is the specific case of the prosecution that

even before she could alight from the bus near Mallayya

temple cross, the driver of the bus moved the bus in a

rash and negligent manner without verifying that all the

passengers have alighted from the bus resulting in falling

down of the Shobha from the bus resulting in injury.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492

21. Material evidence placed on record in this

regard is sufficient enough to uphold the order of

conviction having regard to the limited scope of revisional

jurisdiction.

22. No doubt, P.W.6 has turned partly hostile to the

case of the prosecution. But it is settled principles of law

that oral testimony of a hostile witness cannot be brushed

aside in toto and it is always open for the Court to

appreciate such portion of the oral testimony of the

witness who has turned hostile to the case of the

prosecution so long as that portion would probabilise the

case of the prosecution.

23. In the case on hand, Shobha being inmate of

the bus and was required to delight at Mallayya temple

cross and for which purpose, P.W.6 has given instructions

to the driver and stopping of the bus is also deposed by

P.W.6 with graphic details.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492

24. However, it is the case of the conductor that

after all the passengers alighted from the bus, he gave the

signal for the driver to move the bus. But to the extent he

has supported the case of the prosecution. Learned

counsel for the defence did not cross-examine P.W.6.

25. Admittedly, Shobha who was hale and healthy,

who sustained injury in the process of alighting from the

bus. Bus was immediately stopped on hearing the hue

and cry of the other passengers as per the deposition of

P.W.6. Thereafter, both P.W.6 and driver and other

passengers got down from the bus and noted that there

was serious injury caused to the Shobha. Therefore, they

shifted Shobha in the very same bus to the Mangasuli

hospital.

26. Thereafter, she was shifted for higher medical

care in Meeraj Hospital. Shobha who was hale and

healthy, having got injured while in the course of alighting

from the bus, on account of the fact that bus moved even

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492

before she could alight from the bus is the negligence that

is attributable to the driver.

27. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming from

the driver of the bus either at the time of recording the

accused statement nor he got examined to establish that

he was not negligent and it is the Shobha who did not

alight from the bus with due care and caution resulting in

the accident. Therefore, conviction is to be maintained in

the light of the principles of law enunciated in the case of

Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 (9)

SCC 284.

28. Under such circumstances, in the scope of

limited revisional jurisdiction, this Court is of the

considered opinion that order of conviction recorded by the

learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate

Court is just and proper. Accordingly, point No.1 is

answered in negative.

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492

REG.POINT No.2:

29. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner

contended that mercy may be shown to the revision

petitioner as he is the driver of KSRTC bus. In the first

place, such a submission cannot be countenanced in law

as the driver has denied the accident where as P.W.6

admitted the incident.

30. Further, in the absence of any explanation and

taking note of the fact that only six months imprisonment

is imposed for the offence punishable under Section 304A

of IPC, there is no further scope for reduction of the

imprisonment period following the dictum of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh

Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182.

31. However, separate sentence of imprisonment

ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate for the offence

punishable under Section 279 of IPC cannot be

countenanced in law as it is the Shobha who was the only

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492

person who was injured and ultimately succumbed to

injuries.

32. Therefore, by applying the principle of Doctrine

of Merger, separate sentence for the offence punishable

under Section 279 is impermissible as for the offence

under Section 304A of IPC, six months imprisonment is

ordered. To that extent, the sentence needs modification.

Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the

affirmative.

REG.POINT No.3:

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

Nos.1 and 2 as above, following:

ORDER

i. Revision petition is allowed in part.

ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC, separate sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5492

Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC for a period of four months is hereby set aside.

iii. Rest of the sentence stands unaltered.

iv. Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court for serving remaining part of the sentence till 30.04.2025.

Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records

with copy of this order forthwith.