[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Harish S/O. Dharmappa Danappanavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1146
CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.100005 OF 2019
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
HARISH S/O. DHARMAPPA DANAPPANAVAR
AGE:28 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. BAICHAVALLI, TQ:HANAGAL, DIST:HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.H. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HANAGAL POLICE,
R/BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
PASSED BY THE I-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, IN
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
CRL.A.NO.58/2018 DATED 20.12.2018 BE SET ASIDE AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC
COURT, HANGAL IN C.C.NO.112/2013 DATED 19.03.2018 FOR THE
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
OFFENCES P/U/S 279 & 304(A) OF IPC SEC. 3 R/W 181, 146 & 191 OF
KATTIMANI
Date: 2026.02.02
17:04:28 +0530
M.V. ACT, BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION, BY
ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED
AND ETC.,.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1146
CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri M.H.Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner
and Sri Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara, learned High Court
Government Pleader.
2. Accused in C.C.No.122/2013 on the file of the Additional
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hanagal, is the revision petitioner.
He has filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.58/2018 on the file of the I
Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, challenging the order
of conviction and sentence. However, learned Judge in the First
Appellate Court, without there being any appeal filed by the
State, not only dismissed the appeal of the accused, but
enhanced the sentence from one year simple imprisonment to
two years for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this
Court.
4. In the case on hand, accidental death of Sharanappa
Keshappa Kenchannavar is not in dispute. Revision petitioner/
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1146
HC-KAR
accused was driving the tractor bearing certificate of registration
No.KA-27/TA-3788 on the tank bund road on Baichavalli-
Satenahalli road, in a rash and negligent manner and lost control
over the said tractor on account of which, tractor fell on
Sharanappa Keshappa Kenchannavar in the agricultural land
belonging to Channappa Thavarageri, wherein, said Sharanappa
was gracing cattle and due to the impact lost his life.
5. Admittedly the owner of the tractor did not possess the
insurance and therefore, plying such a tractor on the road itself
is negligence.
6. Criminal case filed against the accused was thoroughly
investigated and charge sheet came to the filed. After due trial,
accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable
under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code along with fine.
7. Appeal filed by the accused challenging the said order of
conviction and sentence before the District Court ended in
enhancement of the sentence of imprisonment for a period of
two years from one year for the offence punishable under
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1146
HC-KAR
Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, in the absence of any
appeal filed by the State.
8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this
Court in this revision petition.
9. Sri M.H.Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/
accused would contend that the tractor got turtled on account of
the improper road condition on the tank bund and hardly
accused could comprehend that it would fall on a person who is
grazing the cattle in the agricultural land. Therefore, The
imprisonment of two years awarded by the First Appellate Court
as against one year awarded by the Trial Judge is on the higher
side and improportionate to the act that has been complained of
against the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition.
10. Per contra, Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High
Court Government Pleader would oppose the revision grounds by
contending that the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court
supplied proper reasons for enhancement of the punishment and
sought for rejection of the revision petition.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1146
HC-KAR
11. Having heard the arguments of both sides and perused the
material on record, following points would arise for consideration.
(i) Whether the prosecution is successful in
establishing all the ingredients to attract the offence
punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3 r/w 181, Section 143 and
Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act?
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from
legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for
interference?
(iii) Whether sentence is excessive and needs
modification?
(iv) Whether the sentence enhanced by the First
Appellate Court in the absence of the appeal filed by the
State is excessive and needs modification?
(v) What Order?
12. REGARDING POINT Nos.1 and 2: In the case on hand,
accused being the driver of the tractor bearing certificate of
registration No.KA-27/TA-3788, which met with a road traffic
accident on 25.11.2012 at about 12.30 p.m. on Baichavally-
Sathenahalli tank bund road is not in dispute. Because of the
road traffic accident, tractor falling into the agricultural land of
Channappa Kallappa Thavarageri is also not in dispute.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1146
HC-KAR
13. Unfortunately, the tractor fell on Sharanappa Keshappa
Kenchannavar, who was grazing the cattle in the agricultural
land. Therefore, it is a case of coincidence.
14. Nevertheless, plying the tractor without valid insurance
policy on the public road itself is a negligent act of the accused.
Therefore, Offence under Section 279 stands established in the
case on hand.
15. Further, tank bund road would always be a fragile road and
drivers of the motor vehicles are required to exercise extra care
and caution in driving the vehicle on a tank bund road.
16. In the case on hand, if the petitioner had driven the tractor
in a proper manner, hardly there was any scope of turtling of the
tractor. Therefore, negligent driving of the accused stands
established by placing necessary evidence on record including
the spot sketch and other corroborative materials.
17. As is rightly contented on behalf of the revision petitioner,
accused could not have comprehended that the tractor would fall
on a person who was grazing the cattle in an agricultural land.
Therefore, tractor turtling and then falling on the agricultural
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1146
HC-KAR
land where the deceased was grazing the cattle could be treated
as an act of coincidence.
18. Therefore, since a life is lost, offence under Section 304A of
the Indian Penal Code is established by the prosecution,
imposition of one year imprisonment by the Trial Magistrate,
which has been modified and enhanced to two years by the First
Appellate Court, in the absence of any appeal by the State is
incorrect.
19. View of this Court is fortified by the principles of law
enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sachin vs.
State of Maharashtra reported in (2025)9 SCC 507.
Therefore, sentence needs modification.
20. Further, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of State of Punjab vs. Saurabh Bakshi reported in
(2015)5 SCC 182, a driver of a motor vehicle is expected to
expect the unexpected on the road and drive with extra care and
caution.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1146
HC-KAR
21. Such a driver cannot have a moment of laxity when his leg
is on the accelerator pedal. Therefore, in such circumstances
minimum of six months imprisonment is to be awarded.
22. Their lordships in the case of Saurabh Bakshi (supra), have
also cautioned the courts while passing the sentence that the
benefit of Probation of Offenders Act would not be made
applicable to the road traffic accident where a valuable life is
lost.
23. In this regard, paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of the said
decision is culled out hereunder:
"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
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1146
HC-KAR
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, 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
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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1146
HC-KAR
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] 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
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1146
HC-KAR
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)"
24. Taking note of the same, and also the fact that a sum
Rs.8,50,000/- has been paid as compensation to the dependents
of the deceased by the accused, the sentence ordered by the
Trial Magistrate enhanced by the First Appellate Court, if reduced
to six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section
304A of the Indian Penal Code, would meet the ends of justice.
25. In view of the above, point Nos.(i) to (iii) are answered in
the affirmative.
26. REGARDING POINT No.(iv): In view of the finding of this
Court on point Nos.(i) to (iii) as above, following:
ORDER
(i) Revision petition allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the
revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable
under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code,
sentence ordered by Trial Magistrate, modified by the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1146
HC-KAR
First Appellate Court is further modified by directing
the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months.
(iii) Time is granted for the revision petitioner to
surrender before the Trial Court till 20th February
2026 for serving the remaining part of the sentence.
(iv) Failure to surrender, the sentence passed by
the Trial Court stands restored, automatically.
(v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court
Records along with copy of this Order for issue of
modified conviction warrant.
(vi) Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
kcm,
CT:CMU
LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 26
