"The accused is found guilty of the offence
punishable U/s.279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC and
section 134 R/w 187 of IMV Act, accordingly acting
U/s. 255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, accused is
convicted for the said offences.
Further the accused is hereby sentenced to pay fine
of ₹500-00 and in default of payment of fine, he
shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
5-days for the offence punishable under Sec. 137
R/w 187 of IMV Act.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887
HC-KAR
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused stands
cancelled."
4. Order of conviction and sentence was challenged
before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.18/2020.
5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after
securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in
detail and reappreciated the material on record and by
considered judgment dated 15.12.2020 and dismissed the
appeal.
6. Being further aggrieved by the same, revision
petitioner is before this Court, in this revision.
7. 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
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887
HC-KAR
and wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing
the revision petition.
8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would
further contend that material evidence placed on record was
not sufficient enough to record a finding that there was a
negligence on the part of the revision petitioner which is a
sine qua non for recording the order of conviction
punishable under Section 304A of IPC and sought for
allowing the revision petition.
9. Alternatively, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner would contend that in the event, this Court while
upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact
that revision petitioner is having a family to maintain, may
reduce the sentence by enhancing the fine amount and
portion of which can be paid as compensation to the
dependants of the deceased and sought for allowing the
revision petition.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887
HC-KAR
10. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader supports the impugned order.
11. He would further contend that eye witness has
been examined who has deposed before the Court as to the
nature with which the road traffic accident occurred in a
graphical manner which has been specifically appreciated by
the learned Trial Magistrate in the impugned judgment in
paragraph No.18 by contending that P.W.6 has stated that
somebody was doing exercise on the public road and in
order to avoid the bus dashing against them, he has to
steer the bus on to the left hand side and at that juncture,
it hit on the deceased and his friends. Therefore, the
negligence of the petitioner is very much apparent on
record and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
12. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned,
learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that
petitioner has not placed any mitigating circumstances on
record so as to accept the argument of learned counsel for
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887
HC-KAR
the revision petitioner seeking scaling down of sentence and
sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto.
13. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that in the case on hand, P.W.1 is the injured
in the same incident and P.W.6 is the independent eye
witness. Death of the pedestrian namely Lokangouda son
of Hanumagouda is on account of road traffic accident
involving a bus bearing No.KA-20-C/5198 involved on
13.03.2018 at about 5.45 a.m is established. There is no
dispute that the petitioner was the driver of the said bus as
could be seen from the material on record.
15. Oral evidence of the injured witness coupled with
the oral testimony of the independent eye witness is
sufficient enough to conclude that it is because of the rash
and negligent driving of the bus by the revision petitioner,
accident has occurred.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887
HC-KAR
16. Admittedly, among the deceased and his friends,
P.W.1 is also injured who was walking on the side of the
road and in order to avoid the people who were doing
exercise on the road, petitioner herein has steered the bus
to the left hand side and hit against the pedestrian.
17. Further, accused has not offered any explanation
whatsoever to the incident instead he has even denied the
accident at the time of recording the accused statement.
18. Taking note of these aspects of the matter,
following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012)
9 SCC 284, when the petitioner has failed to utilize the
opportunity to offer his side of the incident nor any
explanation to the incriminatory circumstances, order of
conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate
confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference
that too in the revisional jurisdiction.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887
HC-KAR
19. Now coming to the question of adequacy of the
sentence is concerned, learned Trial Magistrate without
there being any proper reasons, awarded two years
imprisonment.
20. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has
contended that petitioner is having a family to maintain and
therefore, by enhancing the fine amount, portion of which
can be paid as compensation, sought for setting aside the
imprisonment of two years for the offence punishable under
Section 304A of IPC.
21. What is the adequacy of the sentence that has
been passed in a matter of this nature, and what are the
factors that are to be taken into consideration while passing
an adequate sentence in respect of the offence under
Section 304A of IPC is no longer res integra in view of the
principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi reported in
(2015) 5 SCC 182.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887
HC-KAR
22. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is
culled out hereunder for ready reference:
"14. In this context, we may refer with profit to
the decision in Balwinder Singh [State of
Punjab v. Balwinder Singh, (2012) 2 SCC 182 :
(2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 706] wherein the High Court had
allowed the revision and reduced the quantum of
sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, for the offences punishable under Sections
304-A, 337, 279 IPC by reducing the sentence of
imprisonment already undergone, that is, 15 days.
The Court referred to the decision in Dalbir
Singh v. State of Haryana [Dalbir Singh v. State of
Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1208]
and reproduced two paragraphs which we feel
extremely necessary for reproduction : (Balwinder
Singh case [State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh,
(2012) 2 SCC 182 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 706] , SCC
pp. 186-87, para 12)
"12. ... '1. When automobiles have become
death traps any leniency shown to drivers who
are found guilty of rash driving would be at the
risk of further escalation of road accidents. All
those who are manning the steering of
automobiles, particularly professional drivers,
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887
HC-KAR
must be kept under constant reminders of their
duty to adopt utmost care and also of the
consequences befalling them in cases of
dereliction. One of the most effective ways of
keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to
maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing
sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that
sphere would tempt them to make driving
frivolous and a frolic.
***
13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in
road accidents in India and the devastating
consequences visiting the victims and their
families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature
of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as
attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4
of the Probation of Offenders Act. While
considering the quantum of sentence to be
imposed for the offence of causing death by rash
or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the
prime considerations should be deterrence. A
professional driver pedals the accelerator of the
automobile almost throughout his working
hours. He must constantly inform himself that
he cannot afford to have a single moment of
laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the
pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887
HC-KAR
should not take a chance thinking that a rash
driving need not necessarily cause any accident;
or even if any accident occurs it need not
necessarily result in the death of any human
being; or even if such death ensues he might
not be convicted of the offence; and lastly, that
even if he is convicted he would be dealt with
leniently by the court. He must always keep in
his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted
of the offence for causing death of a human
being due to his callous driving of the vehicle he
cannot escape from a jail sentence. This is the
role which the courts can play, particularly at the
level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of
motor accidents due to callous driving of
automobiles.' (Dalbir Singh case [Dalbir
Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 1208] , SCC pp. 84-85 & 87,
paras 1 & 13)"
15. In B. Nagabhushanam v. State of
Karnataka [(2008) 5 SCC 730 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri)
61] the appellant was directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months for the offence
punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The two-Judge
Bench referred to Dalbir Singh [Dalbir Singh v. State
of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1208]
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887
HC-KAR
and declined to interfere with the quantum of
sentence. Be it stated, in the said case a passage
from Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1979) 4 SCC
719 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 17] was quoted : (B.
Nagabhushanam case [(2008) 5 SCC 730 : (2008) 3
SCC (Cri) 61] , SCC p. 735, para 16)
"16. ... '5. Nevertheless, sentencing must
have a policy of correction. This driver, if he has
to become a good driver, must have a better
training in traffic laws and moral responsibility,
with special reference to the potential injury to
human life and limb. Punishment in this area
must, therefore, be accompanied by these
components. The State, we hope, will attach a
course for better driving together with a livelier
sense of responsibility, when the punishment is
for driving offences. Maybe, the State may
consider, in case of men with poor families,
occasional parole and reformatory courses on
appropriate application, without the rigour of the
old rules which are subject to Government
discretion.' (Rattan Singh case [(1979) 4 SCC
719 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 17] , SCC pp. 720-21,
para 5)"
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887
HC-KAR
23. Applying the principles of law enunciated in the
said decision to the facts and circumstances of the case,
minimum punishment of six months imprisonment has to be
ordered for the proved offence under Section 304A of IPC.
24. Taking note of the fact that there are no criminal
antecedent insofar as petitioner is concerned and he is a
professional driver, this Court is of the considered opinion
that if the sentence is reduced from two years to six months
by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/-,
ends of justice would be met.
25. Accordingly, the 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, 337 and
304A of IPC and Section 134 read with
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887
HC-KAR
Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act,
sentence of imprisonment ordered by the
learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the
First Appellate Court for the offence
punishable under Section 304A of IPC is
reduced from two years to six months by
enhancing the fine amount in a sum of
Rs.25,000/-.
iii. Rest of the sentence stands unaltered.
iv. Fine amount shall be paid on or before
28.02.2026.
v. Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount
would result in automatic restoration of the
sentence passed by the learned Trial
Magistrate.
vi. On receipt of the fine amount, sum of
Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be paid as
compensation to P.W.1 and balance
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887
HC-KAR
sum of Rs.20,000/- is ordered to be paid to
dependants of the deceased under due
identification.
vii. Office is directed to return the Trial Court
Records with copy of this order forthwith for
issue of modified conviction warrant.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
KAV
CT-CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 56
