MANJUNATH S/O IRAPPA KAJJIDONI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16712
CRL.RP No. 100323 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020252712021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 08 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100323 OF 2021
(397 CR.P.C./438 BNSS)
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH S/O IRAPPA KAJJIDONI
AGE 35 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
R/O. KAGALAGOMB
TALUK. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 205.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVANAND B. BEDSUR, FOR SRI ANAND R. KOLLI,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH PSI,
DHARWAD RURAL POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-011.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP.)
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.10.16
16:39:10 +0530
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973, SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION
DATED 23.02.2021, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE
II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT-II, DHARWAD,
IN C.C.NO.889/2009 AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16712
CRL.RP No. 100323 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020252712021
20.09.2021, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, AT
DHARWAD IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.34/2021 AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER FOR THE CHARGE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337,
338 AND 304-A OF IPC AND SECTION 134 READ WITH
SECTION 187 OF M.V.ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the accused assailing
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
23.02.2021, passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC Court-II, Dharwad ('trial Court', for short), in
C.C.No.889/2009, which is confirmed by the judgment and
order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the III Additional
District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dharwad
('First Appellate Court', for short), in Criminal Appeal
No.34/2021, whereby the present petitioner/accused has
been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections
279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’
for short) and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16712
CRL.RP No. 100323 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020252712021
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘M.V.Act’ for short) and he has
been sentenced as under:
Accused is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and
fine of Rs.1,000-00 for the offence punishable
under Section 279 of IPC. In default to pay fine,
he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 30 days.
Accused is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and
fine of Rs.500-00 for the offence punishable
under Section 337 of IPC. In default to pay fine,
he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one month.
Accused is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year and fine
of Rs. 1,000-00 for the offence punishable
under Section 338 of IPC. In default to pay fine,
he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one month.
Accused is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of two years and fine
of Rs.10,000-00 for the offence punishable
under Section 304-A of IPC. In default to pay
fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three months.
Accused is sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.500/- for the offence punishable U/Sec. 134
R/W.Sec. 187 of M.V. Act is default to pay fine
he shall undergo S.I. for a period of 20 days.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16712
CRL.RP No. 100323 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020252712021
Sentences of imprisonment shall run
concurrently.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that, on 06.11.2008
at 08:00 a.m. on Dharwad Saundatti Road near Bhandar
Halla, the accused drove the lorry bearing No.KA-22/B-
1079 towards Saundatti in a rash and negligent manner so
as to endanger human life and dashed to the pickup
Mahindra vehicle bearing registration No.KA-22/B-5214,
which was coming from opposite direction resulting in
accident, thereby some of the inmates of the said
Mahindra pickup vehicle sustained grievous injuries and
later 04 persons succumbed to said injuries and the
accused after causing the accident did not stop there,
without informing the fact to the police, fled away from
the accident spot. On the basis of the complaint, crime has
been registered against the accused and after
investigation charge sheet has been filed against him.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16712
CRL.RP No. 100323 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020252712021
3. The trial Court after taking cognizance issued
process to the accused. He appeared and pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to bring
home the guilt of the accused has relied upon the evidence
of 15 witnesses who are examined as PW1 to PW15 and
got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P30. After
completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused
has been examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. When he
has denied all the incriminating evidence appearing
against him. However, he did not choose to lead any
defence evidence. But, he has got marked 02 documents
as Ex.D1 and D2.
4. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments
and appreciation of the evidence, proceeded to pass the
impugned judgment dated 23.02.2021, whereby the
accused has been convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and Section
134 read with Section 187 of M.V.Act.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16712
CRL.RP No. 100323 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020252712021
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment,
the accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate
Court in Criminal Appeal No.34/2021. The First Appellate
Court after re-appreciation of the evidence on record,
proceeded to pass the impugned judgment dated
20.09.2021, whereby the appeal preferred by the accused
was dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial Court.
6. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal,
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by
the trial Court, the petitioner/accused is before this Court
by filing this revision petition on the following grounds:
a) Both the Courts have failed to
appreciate the evidence on record and there are
contradictions, inconsistencies in the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses, which is not
properly appreciated by both the Courts.
b) The witnesses examined by the
prosecution not at all spoken about the rash and
negligent driving of the petitioner herein,
despite the trial Court convicted the accused.
c) Some of the witnesses examined by
the prosecution have not supported the
prosecution version and they turned hostile
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16712
CRL.RP No. 100323 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020252712021
towards the prosecution case. That fact is not
appreciated by both the Courts.
d) The Motor Vehicle Inspector who is
examined as PW10, who examined the Bolero
pickup vehicle at the spot itself has given report
as per Ex.P27 and during his cross examination
he has stated that he has not seen the spot as it
was not shown by any person.
e) The witnesses who are examined by
the prosecution are all interested witnesses.
They deposed only to claim compensation but
they are not at all eyewitnesses to the incident.
f) The investigating officer failed to
produce the photos of the accident, which are
marked as Ex.D1 and D2 wherein the offending
vehicle i.e., the lorry is not seen in the spot of
accident. Therefore it is contended that both the
Courts without properly appreciating the
evidence on record and that there is lapses
during the investigation, which is also not
appreciated and erroneously convicted the
accused.
Based on the grounds, the petitioner prays that both the
impugned judgment passed by the Courts call for
interference by this Court and also prayed for acquittal of
the accused by setting aside the judgment of both the
Courts by allowing this revision petition.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16712
CRL.RP No. 100323 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020252712021
7. Learned HCGP entered appearance for the
respondent State.
8. Trial Court records have been secured.
9. Heard the arguments of Sri Shivanand B.
Bedsur, for Sri Anand R. Kolli, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Abhishek Malipatil, learned HCGP for the
respondent State. Perused the original records.
10. The point that arises for consideration in this
revision petition is as under:
Whether the impugned judgment passed
by both the Courts suffer from any illegality,
perversity and calls for interference by this
Court?
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner categorically
contended that, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of
the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. It is argued
that, the eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution, PW2
to PW5 and PW8 have turned hostile to the prosecution
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16712
CRL.RP No. 100323 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020252712021
case and the prosecution examined them as eye
witnesses, but they have not supported the prosecution
version. Further, the eyewitnesses examined by the
prosecution PW11, PW12, PW13 who were sitting in the
said Bolero pickup vehicle though they have deposed
about the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the
said lorry; they deposed because they have filed the claim
petition seeking compensation and therefore they have
deposed supporting the prosecution version. Therefore
learned counsel argued that their evidence cannot be
accepted as true so as to convict the accused.
12. Further, learned counsel specifically contended
that so far as evidence of PW10 who is Motor Vehicle
Inspector is concerned, in his cross examination he has
stated that though he inspected the vehicle, he could not
say what is the exact spot where the accident had taken
place. He further stated that, he has not inspected the
lorry at the spot and in Ex.D1 and D2 which are the photos
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16712
CRL.RP No. 100323 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020252712021
pertaining to the accident spot, the lorry i.e., offending
vehicle cannot be seen. Therefore learned counsel argued
that, the accident had not at all occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry, who was
the accused.
13. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner
argued that, the witnesses who are examined by the
prosecution have not at all identified the accused that, he
was the driver of the said vehicle. However, on going
through the statement of accused recorded under Section
313 of Cr.P.C., the accused has not explained how the
accident had occurred. He has also not denied that, he
was not the driver of the said lorry on that particular date
of the incident. When the accused being the driver of the
offending lorry which said to have caused the accident,
then he ought to have explained how the accident had
happened. But except producing the documents i.e.,
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16712
CRL.RP No. 100323 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020252712021
photos Ex.D1 and D2, the accused has not produced any
evidence to explain how the accident had occurred.
14. On a perusal of the impugned judgment passed
by both the Courts, both the Courts have rightly
appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and
the witnesses examined by the prosecution are all
eyewitnesses to the incident who were travelling in the
said Bolero vehicle which met with an accident.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
the said Bolero vehicle, which met with the accident was
not a passenger vehicle and it was only a goods vehicle
and the driver of the said Bolero vehicle was carrying 20
to 25 passengers, which he could not do and therefore it is
argued that the driver of the lorry was not at all negligent.
However, though it may be true that the said Bolero
vehicle could not have taken passengers more than the
limit, however it cannot be said that the accused was not
at all negligent in driving the lorry.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16712
CRL.RP No. 100323 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020252712021
16. On going through the records, soon after the
accident complaint was lodged, the statement of the
injured were recorded, spot mahazar was conducted, and
spot sketch was also drawn, both the Courts have rightly
appreciated the evidence. The petitioner in this case is not
able to establish that, both the Courts have not properly
appreciated the evidence on record. Therefore, the
grounds urged by the petitioner are devoid of merits and
the revision petition is liable to be rejected.
17. At this juncture, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that, the petitioner at the time of
accident was 23 years old boy, he has come from poor
financial background, therefore it is submitted that the
trial Court has imposed sentence of 02 years and instead
of sending him to prison for 02 years, the lesser
punishment may be imposed.
18. On the contrary, learned HCGP submitted that
in this case in all 04 persons were dead and the accused
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16712
CRL.RP No. 100323 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020252712021
has caused the accident in such a rash and negligent
manner and both the Courts after appreciating the facts
and circumstances have rightly imposed the sentence and
hence, no interference is called for.
19. However, on reading the provision of
Sec.304(A) of IPC, which provides punishment as under:
304A. Causing death by negligence –
Whoever causes the death of any person by
doing any rash or negligent act not amounting
to culpable homicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine,
or with both.
Therefore, that there is discretion lies with the Court either
to impose sentence of imprisonment or to impose fine.
20. In this case, looking into the age of the
accused, who was 23 years old and taking into
consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court proceeds to modify the sentence. The sentence
has been modified that, the accused shall undergo simple
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16712
CRL.RP No. 100323 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020252712021
imprisonment for a period of 01 year and he shall pay a
fine of ₹50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
304A of IPC and sentence with regard to other offence as
awarded by the trial Court is retained. Therefore, the point
for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is partly
allowed.
The judgment of conviction dated
23.02.2021, passed by the II Additional Civil
Judge and JMFC Court-II, Dharwad, in
C.C.No.889/2009, for the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC and
Section 134 read with section 187 of M.V.Act,
which is confirmed by the judgment and order
dated 20.09.2021 passed by the III Additional
District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Dharwad, in Criminal Appeal No.34/2021, is
hereby confirmed.
The sentence imposed by the trial Court is
modified as under:
The accused is sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 01 year and
pay a fine of ₹50,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 304A of IPC. In
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16712
CRL.RP No. 100323 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020252712021
default to pay fine, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 06 months.
In so far as other offences are concerned,
sentence imposed is mentioned as under.
The accused is sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 06 months
and pay a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 279 of IPC. In default
to pay fine, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 30 days.
The accused is sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 06 months
and pay a fine of ₹500/- for the offence
punishable under Section 337 of IPC. In default
to pay fine, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month.
The accused is sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 01 year and
pay a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence punishable
under Section 338 of IPC. In default to pay fine,
he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one month.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of
₹500/- for the offence punishable under Section
134 read with section 187 of M.V.Act. In default
to pay fine, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 20 days.
All sentences of imprisonment shall run
concurrently.
In all, the petitioner/accused is ordered to
pay a total fine of ₹53,000/-.
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16712
CRL.RP No. 100323 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020252712021
The bail bonds and surety bonds stand
discharged.
Office is directed to send back the original
records along with a copy of this judgment.
The petitioner/accused is directed to
surrender himself before the trial Court within
04 weeks from the date of this judgment and to
serve sentence and shall also pay fine.
Failing which, Learned Magistrate is
directed to proceed in accordance with law to
secure the accused for serving the sentence by
the accused.
Sd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE
MRK
CT-CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 48