Karnataka High Court
Gurubasayya S/O Channaveerayya ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5705
CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200069 OF 2022
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
GURUBASAYYA S/O CHANNAVEERAYYA KALLIMATH,
AGE:35 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. HATTI VILLAGE, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584115.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH HUTTI POLICE STATION,
Digitally signed
by RAMESH TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR,
MATHAPATI R/BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT BUILDING, KALBURAGI-585103.
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 r/w 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT DATED 04.08.2022 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAICHUR, IN
CRL.A.NO.10/2021 AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 19.01.2021 PASSED BY THE
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT LINGASUGUR IN
C.C.NO.318/2015 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 279, 337, 304(A) OF IPC AND 187 OF IMV ACT AND
CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5705
CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA)
The revision petitioner being accused in
C.C.No.318/2015 on the file of the learned JMFC Court,
Lingasugur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') is
impugning the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 19.01.2021, convicting the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 304-A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and 187 of the
Indian Motor Vehicle Act, (for short 'IMV Act') and
sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for
one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 279 of IPC; to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00/-
for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC; to
undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a
fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5705
HC-KAR
304-A of IPC; with default sentences, which was confirmed
in Criminal Appeal No.10/2021 by the learned II Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, (hereinafter referred
to as 'the First Appellate Court'), by dismissing the appeal
vide judgment dated 04.08.2022.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that, one of
the injured eye-witness being the relative of the deceased
lodged the first information as per Ex.P1 against the
accused with Hutti police station, Dist: Raichur, alleging
commission of the offences punishable under Sections
279, 337, 338 304-A of IPC and 187 of IMV Act. After
investigation, the final report came to be filed.
3. The accused appeared before the Trial Court,
pleaded not guilty. To prove its contention, the
prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P1
to P27. The accused has denied all the incriminating
materials available on record, but has not chosen to lead
any evidence in support of his defence.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5705
HC-KAR
4. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration
all the materials on record, came to the conclusion that,
the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the
accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279,
337, 304-A of IPC and under Section 187 of IMV Act,
accordingly the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence came to be passed convicting and
sentencing the accused as stated above.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has
preferred Criminal Appeal No.10/2021. The First Appellate
Court, on re-appreciation of the materials on record,
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.
Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this
Court.
6. Heard Sri Shivnanad Patil, learned counsel for
the revision petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin,
learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5705
HC-KAR
7. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would
arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by
the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the
First Appellate Court suffers from infirmities
and calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point is 'Partly in the
Affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
8. Even though several grounds are raised in the
revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner
restricted his arguments only to seek leniency in favour of
the petitioner while sentencing for the offence punishable
under Section 304A of IPC. Learned counsel for the
petitioner specifically stated that the petitioner has given
all other contentions raised in the revision petition and
prayed for reducing the substantive sentence imposed for
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5705
HC-KAR
the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC in the
interest of justice.
9. The said submission was opposed by the
learned High Court Government Pleader contending that,
as a result of the road traffic accident, two deaths have
occurred and as many as 12 inmates have sustained
injuries. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not
entitled for any leniency. Accordingly, prays for dismissal
of the petition.
10. It is the contention of the prosecution that, the
petitioner-accused was the driver of the tempo bearing
registration No.KA-26/2828 drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner in a high speed so as to endanger
human life on 15.06.2014 at 10.45 a.m., on Lingasugur-
Raichur main road, as a result of which, when the tempo
came near Chikkahesarur village, it toppled on the left side
of the road, as a result of which Sharanappa and Basha
who were inmates of the tempo sustained fatal injuries
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5705
HC-KAR
and died and 12 inmates have sustained injuries. After the
incident, the accused ran away from the spot without
informing this fact to the police or provided any medical
assistance to the injured. Thus, he has committed the
aforesaid offences.
11. To prove its contention, the prosecution
examined PWs.1, 4 to 13 being the injured eye-witnesses,
who are occupants of the offending tempo. All these
witnesses have deposed regarding the rash and negligent
driving of the vehicle by the accused which resulted in its
toppling causing death of two inmates and injuries to as
many as 12 witnesses. Even though these witnesses were
examined at length, nothing has been elicited from them
to disbelieve their version. The accused has denied all the
incriminating materials available on record, but has not
taken any specific defence. Under such circumstances, the
Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the
aforesaid offences. On re-appreciation, the First Appellate
Court dismissed the criminal appeal. Therefore, I do not
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5705
HC-KAR
find any illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction
passed by the Trial Court, which is confirmed by the First
Appellate Court.
12. It is noticed that, the Trial Court has proceeded
to convict the accused both for the offences punishable
under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. It is settled position
of law that the offence under Section 279 of IPC being the
minor offence, merges with the major offence under
Section 304A of IPC, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Gurubasavaraj @ Bennishettappa vs.
State of Karnataka1. Hence, I am of the opinion that,
while confirming the judgment of conviction punishable
under Section 279 of IPC imposing of sentence for the
same is liable to be set aside.
13. In the meantime, considering the submission
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, some
leniency may be shown in favour of the petitioner while
(2012) 8 SCC 734
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5705
HC-KAR
sentencing the petitioner-accused for the offence under
Section 304A of IPC, taking into consideration the fact that
the incident had occurred on 15.06.2014 and the accused
was aged 34 years at the time of accident.
14. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month
and to pay fine of Rs.5,00/- for each of the offences
punishable under Sections 337 of IPC and 187 of I.M.V.
Act, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
15. In view of the above, I answer the above point
'partly in the affirmative' and proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i) Criminal revision petition is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment of conviction passed in
C.C.No.318/2015 on the file of learned JMFC
Court, Lingasugur, for the offences punishable
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5705
HC-KAR
under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of IPC and 187
of IMV Act, which was confirmed in Criminal
Appeal No.10/2021 on the file of learned
II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Raichur, is hereby confirmed.
iii) The order of sentence passed by the Trial Court
of the offence punishable under Sections 337 of
IPC and 187 of IMV Act, is hereby confirmed.
iv) However, the order of sentence passed by the
Trial Court for the offence punishable under
Section 279 of IPC is set aside.
v) Fine amount, if any, deposited for the offence
punishable under Section 279 of IPC, is ordered
to be refunded to the revision petitioner on due
identification.
vi) The order of sentence passed by the Trial Court
for the offence punishable under Section 304-A
of IPC is hereby modified as under;
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5705
HC-KAR
(a) The revision petitioner/accused is sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for
the offence punishable under Section 304-A
of IPC. In default to pay fine, he shall
undergo simple imprisonment for two
months.
vii) The revision petitioner-accused is entitled for
the benefit of set off as provided under Section
428 of Cr.P.C.
viii) The substantive sentences shall run
concurrently.
Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court
records along with the copy of this judgment for
information and needful action.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
MSR
CT:PK
