Karnataka High Court
Bheemannagouda Biradar vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 July, 2025
Author: V. Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200058/2020
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHRI BHEEMANNAGOUDA BIRADAR,
S/O SHIVALINGAPPA BIRADAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC:DRIVER,
R/O. SANJEEVA NAGAR CROSS,
KEMBAVI, TQ. SHORAPUR,
Digitally signed DIST. YADGIRI-585216
by SUMITRA ...PETITIONER
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH (BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE S.H.O. KEMBHAVI P.S.,
REP BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585102
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 18.09.2020 PASSED BY THE DIST.
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIRI, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.29/2019 THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 17.08.2019 PASSED BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHORAPUR, IN
C.C.NO.19/2019 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHALBE UNDER
SECTIONS 279, 337 AND 304A OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard Sri Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned
counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Jamadar
Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for
the respondent-State.
2. The revision petitioner is the accused, who
suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.19/2019 on the
file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Shorapur, for
the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020
HC-KAR
IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months for the offence under Section 304A of
IPC and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-; for the offence under
Section 337 of IPC, one month simple imprisonment and
fine of Rs.500/-; and for the offence under Section 279 of
IPC a fine of Rs.1000/- and one month imprisonment was
granted by the learned Trial Judge.
3. Validity of said order was challenged before the
First Appellate Court in Crl.A. No.29/2019 and learned
Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the
records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and
by considered judgment dated 18.09.2020 dismissed the
appeal of the accused.
4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is
before this Court in this revision on following grounds:
The impugned judgments and orders of the
both the courts below are illegal, arbitrary and
perverse. Therefore the same calls for
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020HC-KAR
interference of this Hon’ble court to pass
orders by setting aside same.
That, the both the courts below have failed to
appreciate material evidence on record in
correct prospective. Therefore, the orders of
the court below are liable to be set aside.
That, the prosecution has completely failed to
establish the negligent act of the accused,
there is nothing on the record to show that
the petitioner accused was driving the car
rashly and negligently so as to cause
endanger to the human lives. Absolutely
prosecution has failed to prove high speed of
the car at the time of accident. Therefore, in
the absence of a wanton and negligent act on
the part of the petitioner, it cannot be said
that the prosecution had made out a case for
conviction.
That, the courts below have committed
serious error of law in appreciating the
evidence of the PW1,PW2,PW3,PW4 &
PW7,PW8 who claimed to be the eye witness
to the incident. The close reading of the entire
cross examination of the above PW’s it clearly
goes to show that no one have witnessed the
incident and they are all hearsay witnesses.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020HC-KAR
Both the courts have also ignored major
contradictions in the evidence of the above
PW’s with regard to the manner of accident.
Therefore the prosecution has failed to
discharge initial burden on it, as such the
accused under the principle of benefit of doubt
is liable to be acquitted. Very contradictions in
the statements of PW’s given give at the time
of lodging complaint and a statement under
section 161 of CRPC before the police and
before the court while they were examining as
witnesses are totally inconsistent with each
other and in all probability the material
produced before the trial court is not suffice to
hold the petitioner/accused as guilty of the
charges levied. Hence the same requires
indulgence of this Hon’ble court to set aside
the impugned orders.
That the both the courts have failed to
appreciate the fact that the parents of the
both the children have left the children on the
road without keeping any observation on
them. Therefore the parents of the children
have contributed to the accident.
That there are omissions, admissions and
major contradictions in the evidence of
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020HC-KAR
prosecution witnesses which are completely
ignored by the both the courts below.
That in so far as quantum of sentence is
concerned, looking to the manner in which the
accident has occurred, imposition of
maximum sentence of six months is higher
side. That this Hon’ble court in Crl. A.
No.564/1999 wherein this Court imposed
sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- only for
the offence under Section 304-A IPC on the
ground that about six years the Trail Court
has not disposed of the case and the accused
was attending the Trial Court about 72 to 75
hearing dates. In another decision in Crl. A.
No. 512/1994 this Court also imposed fine of
Rs.5, 000/- for the offence under Section 304-
A IPC on the ground that the case was
disposed of about eight years after the
incident. In Crl. A. No. 293/1991 also this
Court imposed sentence to pay fine of Rs.2,
500/- while setting aside the conviction and
sentence passed by the Trial Court had
imposed fine of Rs.250/- only for the offence
under Section 304-A IPC. In Criminal Revision
Petition No.8/2004 this Court also imposed
fine of Rs.4,000/- only for the offence under
Section 304-A IPC on the ground that the
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020HC-KAR
accident in that case had taken place in the
year 1990 and the Revision Petition is
disposed of after 14 years the Revision
Petition came up for hearing. Hence the
sentence imposed by the courts are to be
modified.
In A.P. Raju Vs. State of Orissa (1995 SCC
(Cri) 675) the Supreme Court held, in the
circumstances, the appellant directed to be
released under Section 360 Cr.P.C. on
probation of good conduct, be of good
behaviour and keep peace for a period of one
year on the ground that the accident took
place about 15 years ago and the appellant
was remaining on bail for the last more than 8
years.
In AITHA CHANDER RAO V. STATE OF
ANDHRA PRADESH, 1981 SCC(Crl) 637 the
Supreme Court extended the benefit of the
Act to the accused in that case.
There is no law which lays down that the
provisions of the Act cannot be made
applicable to the case of an accused convicted
for an offence punishable under Section 304-A
I.P.C. Section 4 of the Act applies to all the
offences except the offences punishable with
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020
HC-KAR
imprisonment for life or death. The offence
under Section 304-A I.P.C. is punishable in
maximum with 2 years imprisonment or fine.
Therefore, the provisions of the Act can be
made applicable even to a person who is
convicted of an offence punishable under
Section 304-A 1.P.C. Whether the benefit of
the Act should be given to an accused
convicted of the offence punishable under
Section 304-A I.P.C. will depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case. In the case
reported in Aitha Chander Rao v. State of
Andhra Pradesh, 1981 SCC(Crl) 637 the
benefit of the Act was given to the accused in
that case as there was finding that there was
some amount of contributory negligence on
the part of the victim and the peculiar
circumstances of the case.
5. Sri Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned counsel
for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in
the region petition, vehemently contended that both the
Courts have not properly appreciated the material
evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused,
hence, he sought for allowing the revision petition.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020
HC-KAR
6. He would also contend that in the event this
Court upholding the order of conviction, since the
deceased was child, which came on the road all of a
sudden, by ordering the suitable compensation, sentence
of imprisonment may be set aside.
7. Per contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned
High Court Government Pleader opposes the revision
petition.
8. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf
of the parties, this Court perused material available on
record meticulously.
9. On such perusal of the records, it is crystal
clear that the charge-sheet materials revealed that
accused being the driver of the car bearing No.KA-33/M-
1855, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner
from Kembhavi roadside and dashed against Devendrappa
and Tejaswini, who were playing in front of their house.
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020
HC-KAR
10. Devendrappa sustained grievous injuries,
whereas, Tejaswini sustained simple injuries on the
forehead. Devendrappa was being shifted in the car of the
accused himself for the hospital at Kembhavi and
thereafter, to Shahapur. Enroute near Chamnal,
Devendrappa breathed his last and as such, the dead body
was brought to the village.
11. Based on the complaint lodged by the father of
the deceased, police registered the case for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC,
thoroughly investigated matter and filed charge-sheet.
12. Presence of accused was secured and charges
were framed. Accused not pleaded guilty therefore, trial
was held.
13. In order to bring home the gift of the accused,
in all 12 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 12 and as
many as 10 documents have been placed on record, which
were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P10, comprising
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020
HC-KAR
of complaint, spot mahazar, seizure mahazar, inquest
mahazar, post mortem report, etc.
14. On conclusion of recording of evidence, accused
statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein accused has denied the
incriminating materials, but failed to offer any explanation
whatsoever to the incriminating materials found in the
case of the prosecution nor placed his version on record so
as to appreciate the stand taken by the accused, which
was put forward to prosecution witnesses in the cross-
examination.
15. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the
arguments of the parties and convicted the accused,
disbelieving the alternate theory put forward by the
accused that all of a sudden the deceased came on road
and whereby the accident has occurred and convicted the
accused.
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020
HC-KAR
16. On re-consideration of evidence, it is seen that
in the cross-examination of PW1, it has been elicited that
he is not an eyewitness to the incident. Admittedly, from
the complaint itself, it is found that somebody informed
the complainant about the incident and therefore he
rushed to his house.
17. PW2 is the uncle of the deceased. He deposed
that at about 9.30 or 10.00 a.m., Devendrappa and his
daughter Tejaswini were playing in the front yard of the
house. At that juncture, accused being the driver of the
Indica Car bearing No. KA-33/M-1855, came in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the children, who
were playing in the front yard. Tejaswini sustained blood
injury on the forehead, whereas, Devendrappa sustained
grievous injuries and enroute to the Shorapur Hospital
after taking the first aid in Kembhavi Hospital
Devendrappa lost his life.
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020
HC-KAR
18. In his cross-examination, it has been elicited
that on hearing the hue and cry, the inmates of the house
came there and they intimated about the accident and
knowing the grievous injuries sustained by Devendrappa,
accused voluntarily took the injured in his car.
19. In the examination-in-chief of PW6-Doctor, by
mistake instead of mentioning the name of Devendrappa,
the Doctor has mentioned the name of the injured
Tejaswini. However, he was not cross-examined by
accused. However, witness was recalled and the
discrepancy is rectified by conducting further examination-
in-chief.
20. Shankramma being the mother of the deceased
supported the case of the prosecution by stating that her
son Devendrappa and her niece Tejaswini were playing in
the front yard of the house and at that juncture accused
being the driver of car dashed against them, whereby,
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020
HC-KAR
Devendrappa sustained grievous injuries and Tejaswini
sustained minor injuries.
21. In her cross-examination she has specifically
answered that she is an eyewitness to the incident and
after hearing the loud sound she came out of the house
and saw the incident. She denied the suggestion that to
lay a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, she
has deposed falsely.
22. It was also suggested to her that the children
themselves came on the road while playing and incident
has occurred. The said suggestion was denied by her.
23. She admits however that accused took the
injured in his car to the hospital. The above, evidence on
record is sought to be re-appreciated by the counsel for
the revision petitioner.
24. Having bestowed best attention to the material
evidence placed on record, it is pertinent to note that the
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020
HC-KAR
alternate theory put forward on behalf of the accused that
because of the young age of the children, they themselves
came under the car which was moving in normal speed on
the road is not probablized by atleast placing plausible
evidence on record.
25. Further, accused being the driver of the
offending car, failed to explain these aspects of the matter
at the time of recording the accused statement.
26. Prosecution is successful in placing the
necessary material evidence, whereby, negligence of the
revision petitioner is established.
27. Further, accused has gone to the extent of
denying the question that was put to him in the 313
statement that he shifted the injured in his own car and
Devendrappa lost his life near Chaminal Village when he
was shifted from Kembhavi Hospital to Shahapur Hospital.
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020
HC-KAR
28. Taking note of these aspects of the matter
when there is no plausible proof placed on record to
establish the alternate theory and accused having failed to
explain the incriminatory circumstances or at least placed
his version on record, the order of conviction recorded by
Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court
needs no interference by this Court, that too in the
revisional jurisdiction.
29. View of this Court in this regard is supported by
the principles of law enunciated by Apex Court in the case
of Ravi Kapur vs State Of Rajasthan reported in
(2012)9 SCC 284. Accordingly, the order of conviction
needs to be maintained.
30. Having said thus, this Court bestowed its
attention to the sentence portion. The learned Trial
Magistrate taking note of the fact that accused has shifted
the injured in his own car for the immediate medical
– 17 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020
HC-KAR
treatment, has only granted six months imprisonment for
the offence under Section 304A IPC.
31. Taking note of the principles of law enunciated
in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE
OF PUNJAB Vs. SAURABH BAKSHI reported in (2015)
5 SCC 182, this Court does not find any reasons or
mitigating circumstances to further reduce the sentence.
Accordingly, the order of sentence needs to be maintained.
32. In view of the foregoing discussions, the
following:
ORDER
i) The criminal revision petition is meritless
and it is hereby dismissed.
ii) The revision petitioner is granted time till
31.07.2025 for surrendering before the
Trial Court for serving the remaining part
of the sentence.
– 18 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3774
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2020
HC-KAR
iii) Office is directed to return the Trial Court
Records along with copy of this order
forthwith.
Sd/-
(V. SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
SBS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57
CT:PK
[ad_1]
Source link