Karnataka High CourtCriminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

After Crash Killed Four, Karnataka HC Upholds Lorry Driver’s Conviction, Cuts 304A Term From 2 Years To 1 And Raises Fine To ₹50,000

MANJUNATH S/O IRAPPA KAJJIDONIv.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

After Crash Killed Four, Karnataka HC Upholds Lorry Driver’s Conviction, Cuts 304A Term From 2 Years To 1 And Raises Fine To ₹50,000. MANJUNATH S/O IRAPPA KAJJIDONI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the concurrent judgments of conviction suffered from illegality or perversity warranting interference in revision

The court held

The revision petition was partly allowed.

It also directed

The conviction under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act was affirmed

The Section 304A sentence was modified to one year’s simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000, with six months’ simple imprisonment in default; the sentences for the other offences were retained, and all terms of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently

The petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and pay the fine

01Facts

On 6 November 2008, a lorry driven by the petitioner collided with a Mahindra pickup on the Dharwad–Saundatti Road. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner drove rashly and negligently, causing injuries and the eventual deaths of four occupants, and left the scene without reporting the accident

p. 4

The trial court convicted him under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; the appellate court affirmed the conviction

pp. 5–6

In revision, the petitioner challenged the appreciation of evidence and sought acquittal, or alternatively a reduction in sentence

pp. 6–8, 12–13

02Issues

i.Whether the concurrent judgments of conviction suffered from illegality or perversity warranting interference in revision

p. 8

ii.Whether the sentence imposed for the Section 304A IPC offence should be modified in view of the petitioner’s age and circumstances

pp. 12–14

03Law Applied

The petition invoked the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

pp. 2–3

The Court considered the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC, and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act

pp. 2–3

Section 304A IPC provides that causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide is punishable with imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both; the Court treated the provision as allowing discretion in selecting the sentence

p. 13

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 397Section 401Section 313

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 279Section 337Section 338

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 134Section 187

04Reasoning

The Court found that the evidence, including that of occupants of the pickup who testified to the lorry driver’s rash and negligent driving, had been properly assessed by both lower courts

pp. 9–12

It rejected the contention that the pickup’s alleged excess passengers absolved the petitioner of negligence, and held that the petitioner had not shown that the concurrent findings were improperly reached

pp. 11–12

On sentence, however, it relied on the discretion under Section 304A IPC and the petitioner’s age at the time of the accident, stated to be 23, to reduce the imprisonment imposed for that offence

pp. 12–14

05Holding

The revision petition was partly allowed.

pp. 14–15

The conviction under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act was affirmed

pp. 14–15

The Section 304A sentence was modified to one year’s simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000, with six months’ simple imprisonment in default; the sentences for the other offences were retained, and all terms of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently

pp. 15–16

The petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and pay the fine

p. 16
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

MANJUNATH S/O IRAPPA KAJJIDONIvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · October 08, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment