SANJANNA S/O CHINNARANGAPPA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16525
CRL.RP No. 100178 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020075832022




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 06 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100178 OF 2022


(397 CR.P.C. /438 BNSS)

BETWEEN:

SANJANNA S/O CHINNARANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC. DRIVER IN APSRTC,
R/O. ANANTHAPUR,
ANDRA PRADESH.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BELLARI TRAFFIC P.S.
BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
REPTD. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP)











Digitally signed
by BHARATHI H
M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.10.14
17:13:27 +0530

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 AND 401 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE,
1973, SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 15.03.2022, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.40/2018,
PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, THEREBY CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT DATED 13.08.2018, PASSED IN C.C.NO.101/2016,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16525
CRL.RP No. 100178 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020075832022



BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM
AT BALLARI, AND PETITIONER BE ACQUITTED OF THE
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 279, 304(A) OF IPC AND SECTION
134(B) READ WITH SECTION 187 OF M.V.ACT, 1988.
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, being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.03.2022, passed in
Criminal Appeal No.40/2018 by the Principal District and
Session Judge, Ballari ('First Appellate Court', for short),
confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
13.08.2018, passed in C.C.No.101/2016 by the Principal
Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari ('trial Court', for short),
whereby the revision petitioner/accused has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 279,
304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC', for short) and
under Section 134(b) read with Section 187 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 ('M.V.Act', for short).

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16525
CRL.RP No. 100178 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020075832022



2. Facts of the case in brief is that, on 06.08.2016
at 04:30 p.m. the deceased was proceeding on a
motorcycle near Sub Registrar Office, Ballari; by that time
the accused being the driver of APSRTC bus bearing
registrar No.AP-28/Z-433, came in a high speed and in
rash and negligent manner, dashed to the motorcycle and
the deceased suffered severe injuries and succumbed to
those injuries on the spot itself. The accused even after
the accident without giving any information about the
accident to the nearest police station, left the bus on the
spot and went away.
3. After filing the complaint, a case has been
registered against the accused and after completion of the
investigation, charge sheet has been filed. Upon non-
pleading of the guilt by the accused, the prosecution in
order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined 11
witnesses as PW1 to PW11 and got marked the documents
as Ex.P1 to P17.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16525
CRL.RP No. 100178 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020075832022



4. After completion of the prosecution evidence,
statement of the accused was recorded as provided under
Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for
short ‘Cr.P.C.’). When the accused denied all the
incriminating evidence appearing against him in the
prosecution evidence. However, he did not choose to lead
any defence evidence.
5. The trial Court after appreciation of the
evidence on record proceeded to pass the impugned
judgment, whereby the accused has been convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 279, 304A of IPC
and under Section 134(b) read with Section 187 of
M.V.Act and he has been sentenced to pay a fine of
₹1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of
IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of 06 months
with fine of ₹5,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 304A of IPC and a fine of ₹500/- for the offence
punishable under Section 187 of the M.V.Act.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16525
CRL.RP No. 100178 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020075832022



6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the
accused preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court
in Criminal Appeal No.40/2018 and the First Appellate
Court after re-appreciation of the evidence on record,
dismissed the appeal, confirming the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, vide
impugned judgment dated 15.03.2022.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner/accused has preferred the present revision
petition.
8. Learned HCGP entered appearance on behalf of
the respondent State.
9. The trial Court records have been secured.
10. Heard the arguments of Sri B.S.Sangati learned
counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Abhishek Malipatil
learned HCGP for the respondent/State and perused the
original records.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16525
CRL.RP No. 100178 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020075832022



11. The point that arises for consideration of this
Court in this revision is as under:
Whether the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by both the
Courts suffer from infirmity, illegality, or
perversity, which calls for interference by this
Court?

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
both the Courts have not properly appreciated the
evidence on record and none of the witnesses examined
by the prosecution have spoken about the rash and
negligent driving of the accused and therefore, it is
contended that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt, despite of which
both the Courts have convicted the accused.
13. On the contrary, learned HCGP submitted that
PW2 and PW10 are the eyewitnesses to the incident and
they have deposed about the rash and negligent driving of
the accused, thereby the accident is caused and the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16525
CRL.RP No. 100178 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020075832022



deceased died who was a Doctor by profession. Therefore
learned HCGP argued that both the Courts have rightly
convicted the accused. The petitioner herein has not made
out any ground to interfere with the finding of both the
Courts and hence, he submitted that the revision petition
to be dismissed.
14. In the light of the arguments addressed by both
the parties, this Court has gone through the evidence
placed on record by the prosecution before the trial Court.
PW1 is the spot mahazar witness. He deposes about the
spot mahazar marked as Ex.P1.
15. PW2 said to be the eyewitness has deposed
that, he along with the deceased were doing house
surgeonship and on 06.08.2016 they were posted for
community medicine to District Hospital, Ballari and after
finishing their work PW2 along with another person were
coming on their motorcycle and the deceased was also
coming on his motorcycle and when they reached near

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16525
CRL.RP No. 100178 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020075832022



Veterinary Hospital on Royal Circle, a APSRTC bus came
from back side of the motorcycle and dashed against the
motorcycle and due to the said impact the deceased fell
down and sustained injuries and died on the spot.
16. PW3 is also another eyewitness who was going
along with PW2. He has also similarly deposed as deposed
by PW2.
17. During the course of arguments, learned
counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court
regarding cross examination of PW2 and in the cross-
examination PW.2 he has answered to the question put by
the Court, which is extracted as under:
Since you were on the back side of the
bus, neither you nor the pillion rider cannot see
the impact. Answer: I cannot say about the
pillion rider.

18. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner
argued that even PW2 is also not the eyewitness to the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16525
CRL.RP No. 100178 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020075832022



incident and he has not spoken about how the bus came
and therefore his evidence cannot be accepted as true.
Though they were cross examined by suggesting that,
they did not see the alleged accident, but however in their
cross-examination the accused could not elicit any
contrary evidence so as to discard the evidence of PW2
and PW3 who are the eyewitnesses to the incident.
19. On perusal of the impugned judgment passed
by the trial Court, the trial Court has appreciated the
evidence of the eyewitnesses and came to the conclusion
that due to rash and negligent driving of the accused the
alleged incident had happened and the deceased died due
to the said accident. Even before the First Appellate Court
also, the learned Session Judge, after re-appreciating the
evidence on record has opined that, the trial Court has
rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has come
to the right conclusion that, the prosecution has
established the guilt of the accused. So, though the

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16525
CRL.RP No. 100178 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020075832022



petitioner/accused herein has contended that the
eyewitnesses have not deposed in support of the
prosecution version, however on a perusal of the evidence
of PW2 and PW3, they have deposed that they were the
eyewitnesses and the manner in which the bus was driven
by the accused how he came and dashed against the
motorcycle of the deceased.
20. During the course of arguments of learned
counsel for petitioner, when this Court specifically
questioned the learned counsel for the petitioner, what is
the defence of the petitioner/accused with regard to how
the accident happened and whether he has explained in
the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
alleged accident happened near circle and when the bus
took turn, the deceased who was riding the motorcycle
himself came and dashed against the bus and thereby, the
alleged accident had taken place and he was never

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16525
CRL.RP No. 100178 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020075832022



negligent while driving the bus and accident not happened
due to his negligence.
21. Whether such defence he has taken while
recording his 313 statement and in order to see, when this
Court has perused the records of the trial Court, on a
perusal of the 313 statement, the accused has not
explained how the accident had taken place. He has
answered that, he has no evidence on his side and he has
also answered the question that he has nothing to say
about the accident. Therefore, when the accused has not
explained how the accident had taken place, then on the
basis of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, both the Courts
have rightly come to the conclusion that due to the rash
and negligent act of the accused, the alleged accident had
taken place. Thereby, the petitioner/accused has failed to
substantiate that both the Courts have committed an error
in convicting the accused and thereby the grounds urged

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16525
CRL.RP No. 100178 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020075832022



in the revision petition are unsustainable and Revision
Petition is liable to be rejected.
22. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
argued that the trial Court has imposed sentence of simple
imprisonment for a period of 06 months for the offence
punishable under Section 304A of IPC and it is submitted
that, instead of sending the accused for imprisonment as
he is a driver of APSRTC bus and his service conditions will
be affected and therefore, this Court may modify the
sentence by enhancing the fine amount.
23. Considering the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner/accused, confirming the
conviction, sentence has been modified. Therefore, the
point for consideration is answered accordingly. This Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is allowed
in part.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16525
CRL.RP No. 100178 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020075832022



The judgment dated 15.03.2022, passed in
Criminal Appeal No.40/2018 by the Principal
District and Session Judge, Ballari and the
judgment dated 13.08.2018, passed in
C.C.No.101/2016 by the Principal Senior Civil
Judge and CJM, Ballari, is confirmed insofar as
conviction of the accused is concerned. The
sentence imposed by the trial Court is modified
as under:
The accused shall pay a fine of ₹50,000/-
for the offence punishable under Section 304A
of IPC. In default, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 06 months.
In so far as other offence are concerned,
sentence imposed is mentioned as under.
The accused shall pay ₹1,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC as
imposed by the trial Court and further the
accused shall pay a fine of ₹500/- for the
offence punishable under Section 187 of M.V.Act
as imposed by the trial Court.
In default of payment of fine, the
petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment as
ordered by the trial Court in respect of the
offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC
and 187 of M.V.Act.
In all, the petitioner/accused is ordered to
pay a total fine of ₹51,500/- within four weeks
from the date of this judgment.
The conviction and imposition of fine shall
not affect the service conditions of the
petitioner/accused.

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16525
CRL.RP No. 100178 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020075832022



The bail bonds and surety bonds stands
discharged.
Office is directed to send back the original
records along with a copy of this judgment.



Sd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE


MRK
CT-CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 44