SRI MANJUNATHA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60869
CRL.RP No. 805 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010340802024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 805 OF 2024

(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1.
SRI MANJUNATHA
S/O KEMPAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SANTHE MARKET,
TAMIL COLONY, CHIKKAMAGALURU,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577101
…PETITIONER







(BY SRI. NAVEEN J N.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RURAL POLICE, CHIKKAMAGALURU
(REP. BY SPP, OFFICE OF SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001.
…RESPONDENT



(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO 1.SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY
THE COURT OF PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.37/2019 DATED 30.01.2024
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60869
CRL.RP No. 805 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010340802024



AND 2.SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE PASSED BY THE COURT OF IST ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN
C.C.NO.531/2017 DAETD 23.01.2019 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL ORDER
This is the revision petition filed by the revision
petitioner/accused under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), praying
for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 23.01.2019 passed in C.C.No.531/2017 on
the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Chikkamagaluru (in short, ‘the trial Court’), confirmed in
appeal judgment dated 30.01.2024 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.37/2019 on the file of the Prl. District and
Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru (in short, ‘the appellate
Court’) and to acquit the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of The
'
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC') and Section
187 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'MV Act') .
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60869
CRL.RP No. 805 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010340802024




2. The parties would be referred with their ranks, as
they were before the trial Court, for the sake of
convenience and clarity.

3. The case of prosecution in nutshell is that on
14.07.2016 at about 12:00 p.m., in front of the site
belonging to one Rangaswamy on Hiremagalur-
Chikkamagaluru road, Dinesha-PW.7 was riding the
motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-18/ED-8210 with
Purushothama as the pillion rider; at that time a lorry
bearing Reg.No.KA.52/6724 came from opposite side i.e.,
from Chikkamagaluru side with great speed rashly and
negligently, dashed against the motor cycle; due to which,
the rider and motorcycle fell on the left side of the road
and the lorry overturned on the right side of the road and
because of that, the rider sustained grievous injuries and

the pillion rider died on the spot within 2-3 minutes.

4. The trial Court and the appellate Court after
examining the available oral and documentary evidence
have come to the conclusion that the accident happened
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60869
CRL.RP No. 805 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010340802024



due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry (the
accused).

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments, the
revision petitioner/accused is before this court.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri
Naveen J.N. would submit that the accused is not properly
identified by the witnesses. PW.1 categorically admitted in
his evidence that he had not seen the accused on the date
of incident; there is some admission by PW.7 in his cross-
examination and these aspects were not appreciated by
the trial Court in an appropriate manner. There are some
specific admissions in the cross-examination of
prosecution witnesses, which are not properly appreciated
by the trial Court and the appellate Court. Hence, prayed
for allowing the revision petition.

The learned HCGP for the respondent Sri
7. Vinay
Mahadevaiah would submit that there is evidence of
eyewitnesses who speak on the rashness and negligence
on the part of accused in driving the lorry, which caused
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60869
CRL.RP No. 805 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010340802024



the accident. This fact is substantiated from the evidence
of spot panch witnesses and police official witnesses. The
serious impact of the accident is that the pillion rider died
on the spot and PW.7 sustained grievious injuries in the
accident. Hence, considering these aspects, the trial Court
convicted the accused, which is confirmed by the appellate
Court, which requires no interference.

8. Having heard arguments of both sides, verifying
the revision petition papers, the trial Court and the
appellate Court records, the point that arises for
consideration is:
"

Whether the trial Court and the appellate Court
have committed gross erroneousness in convicting
the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC and Section 187
of MV Act?"


9. The finding of this Court on above point is in
'Affirmative' for the following:

Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60869
CRL.RP No. 805 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010340802024



REASONS

10. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is very
limited. In this regard, this Court places reliance on the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Kuntegowda v/s Thurubaiah in Criminal Appeal
No.3654/2026, (Arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No.2247 of 2024 dated 04.08.2026
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1485 . In the aforesaid
judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph Nos.7.1.
to 7.3 has discussed the revisional jurisdiction of this
Court, which reads as follows:
" 7.3. The contours for exercise of revisional
jurisdiction has been well settled by the judicial
dicta of this Court wherein time and again it has
been observed that the High Court shall not
interfere with the orders of the lower court
unless:

i. The order or finding of the lower court
is perverse, grossly erroneous, glaringly
unreasonable or wholly unreliable or
untenable in law.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60869
CRL.RP No. 805 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010340802024




ii. The lower court has passed the
impugned order after considering an
immaterial or irrelevant material or no
material at all.

iii. There is a non-consideration of any
relevant material or the judicial
discretion has been exercised arbitrarily
or capriciously."


11. Thus, only if the judgment of the trial Court
confirmed by appellate Court is perverse or grossly
erroneous, is grossly unreasonable, or wholly unreliable,
or wholly untenable, or the trial Court considered an
immaterial or irrelevant, material or no material or not at
all relevant material or judicial discretion has been
exercised arbitrarily and capriciously, the revisional Court
can interfere with such judgment.

12. The conclusion of the trial court upheld by the
appellate court is based on the oral evidence of
eyewitness-PW1 and the rider of the motorcycle- PW.7,
which is supported by the evidence of panch witnesses -
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60869
CRL.RP No. 805 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010340802024



PWs.3 and 4. PW.2 was the owner of the lorry who has
handed over the lorry to the accused for driving. PWs.5, 6
and 8 are police witnesses.

13. The panchanama as per Ex.P.3 consists of the
spot sketch; it reveals that the accident has taken place
from left side of the road when it is considered from the
side of the motorcycle and the lorry came from opposite
side on the extreme right side and caused the accident.

14. The defence taken by the accused is that he was
not the driver of the lorry which caused the accident. In
this regard, PWs.1 and 7 have categorically identified the
accused before the Court that he was the driver of the
lorry. The evidence of PWs.1 and 7 that after causing the
accident, accused ran away from the spot.

15. PW.2 is the owner of the lorry and he has
deposed in his examination in chief that the accused was
his driver. He has given reply to the statutory notice
issued under Section 133 of MV Act stating that the
accused was his driver of the offending vehicle at the time
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60869
CRL.RP No. 805 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010340802024



of causing the accident. In the cross-examination he has
only deposed that he does not know the contents of police
documents as per Exs.P.6 to P.9. However, it is to be
noted here that he owes a statutory duty that he has to
give details of the driver at the time of accident to the
investigating officer. The said reply is already marked as
Ex.P.6. Thus, his ignorance of contents of these
documents in the cross-examination would not take away
the validity of said document. In that reply, PW.2
specifically stated that accused was its driver and he was

holding driving license.

16. Except denying the case of prosecution in the
statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the
accused stated that he was not the driver of the lorry on
the date of accident.

17. Furthermore, as discussed above, both PWs.1
and 7 have categorically identified the accused in their
evidence. Even though, PW1 has deposed that he was
concentrating more on the injured person and the person
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60869
CRL.RP No. 805 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010340802024



who died on the spot; he has denied the suggestion that
accused was not the driver of the offending vehicle. On the
other hand, PW7 was not cross-examined on this point.

18. The above discussion reveals that the identity of
accused is established by the prosecution.

19. The spot-panchanama coupled with the evidence
of PWs.1 and 7 clearly establishes the rashness and
negligence on the part of the accused in causing the
accident.

20. Considering these aspects, rightly the trial Court
convicted the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC and Section 187 of MV
Act, which is confirmed by the appellate Court. The
aforesaid finding is not erroneous; not capricious; based
on material evidence and irrelevant evidence was not
considered. Hence, interference of this Court on the
judgment of conviction is not required.

21. As far as sentencing part is concerned, due to
the impact of the accident, the pillion rider died
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60869
CRL.RP No. 805 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010340802024



immediately on the spot and the rider of the motorcycle
sustained grievous injuries. Considering these aspects, the
trial Court sentenced the accused by imposing a fine of
` 1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 of IPC; 6
months imprisonment and fine of `1 ,000/- for the offence
under Section 338 of IPC and 2 years imprisonment and
fine of ` 2,000/- for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC
and as accused ran away from the spot without providing
first-aid to the injured and without intimating the accident
to the concerned Police Station; he was sentenced to pay
a fine of ` 500/- for the offence under Section 187 of MV
Act. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

22. The maximum punishment for the offence under
Section 304-A of IPC is 2 years. In this regard, the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner places reliance on the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs.
1
Saurabh Bakshi .

1
(2015) 5 SCC 182
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60869
CRL.RP No. 805 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010340802024




23. In the aforesaid Judgment, the Hon'ble Apex
Court by placing reliance on several earlier judgments of
the Apex Court has concluded that the imposition of
sentence of one year be reduced to six months. The
paragraph-23 of the said Judgment is extracted as follows:
"23. In the instant case the factum of rash and
negligent driving has been established. This Court
has been constantly noticing the increase in number
of road accidents and has also noticed how the
vehicle drivers have been totally rash and negligent.
It seems to us driving in a drunken state, in a rash
and negligent manner or driving with youthful
adventurous enthusiasm as if there are no traffic
rules or no discipline of law has come to the centre
stage. The protagonists, as we perceive, have lost all
respect for law. A man with means has, in possibility,
graduated himself to harbour the idea that he can
escape from the substantive sentence by payment of
compensation. Neither the law nor the court that
implements the law should ever get oblivious of the
fact that in such accidents precious lives are lost or
the victims who survive are crippled for life which, in
a way, is worse than death. Such developing of
notions is a dangerous phenomenon in an orderly
society. Young age cannot be a plea to be accepted
in all circumstances. Life to the poor or the
impecunious is as worth living for as it is to the rich
and the luxuriously temperamental."



24. On certain occasions, opportunities maybe
granted to the convict for reforming himself but it is
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60869
CRL.RP No. 805 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010340802024



equally important that the principle of proportionality of
offence committed and the penalty imposed are to be kept
in view. When carrying out this complex exercise, it is
obligatory on the part of the court to see the impact of the
offence under society as a whole and its ramifications on
the immediate collective as well as its repercussions on
the victim. By placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment
and considering the impact of accident on the society as a
whole, this Court opines that the imprisonment imposed
on the accused at 2 years shall be reduced to 1 year.

25. Hence, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in
part.
ii) The sentence of imprisonment for the offence
punishable under Section 304-A IPC is reduced
to one year.
iii) The imposition of sentence of fine and other
part of the judgment of trial Court is unaltered.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60869
CRL.RP No. 805 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010340802024




iv) The bail bond of revision petitioner stands
cancelled. He is directed to surrender forthwith
to undergo sentence;

v) the revision petitioner be taken into custody to
undergo the period of sentence as indicated in
this order;

vi) the revision petitioner is entitled to set off for
the period of sentence he has already
undergone under Section 468 of the BNSS
(corresponding Section 428 of Cr.P.C.)

Digitally Signed By:



(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE


SPV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

K B GEETHA