Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 539
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Laxman S/o Bhimasha Airodagi - Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 200071 of 2020
Decided On : 20-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ashok Mulage
For the Respondent: Veeranagouda Malipatil
The court upheld that significant negligence resulting in death warrants severe penalties, affirming concurrent sentences and dismissing the accused's claims of proper conduct during the incident.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A - Conviction for rash and negligent driving resulting in grievous injuries and death - Accused convicted to various terms of simple imprisonment and fines, orders running concurrently. (Paras 2, 22)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 255(2) - Court's discretion in imposing sentences for convicted offences and running concurrent sentences. (Paras 2, 22)
Facts of the case:
The accused suffered conviction for causing an accident while driving a goods vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in injuries and the death of a passenger. The trial court and appellate court upheld the conviction despite the accused's claims of proper driving. (Paras 5-21)
Findings of Court:
The conviction of the accused was affirmed as evidence demonstrated his negligence, including running away from the accident scene without assisting the injured. The vehicle's unroadworthy condition and failure to heed warnings were noted. (Paras 20-21)
Issues: Whether the courts below appropriately assessed the evidence regarding the accused's driving behavior and the surrounding circumstances of the accident, including witness credibility. (Paras 4, 22)
Ratio Decidendi: The accused’s claim of no negligence was refuted by substantial evidence, finding that he could have taken precautions against the clearly foreseeable dangers of carrying passengers in a goods vehicle. The court upheld the principle that severe penalties are warranted in cases involving loss of life due to negligence. (Paras 20-24)
Result: Revision petition dismissed; the accused must surrender to serve the remainder of the sentence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court’s reasoning on evidence and conviction (Para 1 , 3 , 11 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 2. conviction basis and procedural history (Para 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. arguments regarding negligent driving and conviction (Para 4 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. principle on sentencing and denial of probation (Para 22 , 23) |
| 5. final dismissal of revision petition (Para 24) |
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri. Ashok Mulage, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Sri. Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. Revision Petitioner is accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced as under:
“ORDER
Accused is convicted U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/s. 279 of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months and pay fine of Rs.500/-.
In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo S.I. for 7 days. Accused is convicted U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s 337 of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months and pay fine of Rs.5,00/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo S.I. for 7 days.
Accused is convicted U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s 338 of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo S.I. for 10 days.
Accused is convicted U/s 255(2) OF Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s. 304(A) of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo S.I. for 1 month.
All the sentences shall run concurrently. The bail bond of the accused shall stands cancelled. Furnish a free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith.”
3. The validity of the order of conviction and sentence was questioned before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.46/2017.
4. The said appeal on merits came to be dismissed by the Judgment dated 22.09.2020. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court in this revision petition, on the following grounds:
(1) That, the Judgment/order under appeal is (impugned) against the records of the case and perverse. The courts below has not properly and judiciously appreciated the record; hence come to wrong conclusion.
(2) That, PW.1 Kailasayya is the informant and injured person this case in his evidence the reported all the relevant things and in his cross examination he deposed that the Rev. Petitioner was properly driving the vehicle and he also told that at the time of accident one two wheeler suddenly taking U-turn infront of this vehicle and to rescue the vehicle driver suddenly took the vehicle at the right side and he was driving the vehicle on left side of the road and it was slow. This is enough to show that the driver is not driver the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. This is not appreciated by the courts below.
(3) That, the PW.2 is the Malleshappa who is spot and seizure pancha in his cross examination he told that he does not know the contents of the panchanama and who has written that panchanama and what has been written in the panchanama, which is not appreciated by the courts below.
(4) That, the PW.3 Nagamma one of the injured witness in her cross examination she told that there are speed breakers on the road and the vehicle is running on the left side of the road and she doe not identify the accused and police have not shown the accused.
(5) That, the PW.4 she also told that she does not know at how much speed the driver was driving the vehicle and also admits that there are speed breakers on the road and road was also not proper and the vehicle was also on the left side of the road so question of rash and negligence driving does not arise.
(6) That, the PW.5 he is the son of the owner of the tempo who has not supported the prosecution case and prosecution has treated him hostile and PW 6 is another spot and seizure p
