Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
M.G. UMA, J.
Krishna S/o Nagappa - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No.200125 of 2023 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
Decided on : 12-09-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Traffic Offences
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.313
Headnote
(B) Negligence - The evidence of eyewitnesses consistently established the accused's rash and negligent driving led to the child's death, which was not rebutted by the accused. No specific defence was offered by the accused. (Paras 9-11)
(C) Sentencing - The court clarified that the offence under Section 279 merges with that under Section 304A, hence the conviction under Section 279 was set aside. (Paras 14)
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for causing the death of a 9-year-old child due to reckless driving on a public road. Eyewitness accounts supported the prosecution's case, establishing the accused's liability. (Paragraphs 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the conviction but found error in sentencing under both offences. The conviction under Section 279 was set aside. (Paragraph 14)
Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence were justifiable under the law considering the evidence and circumstances. (Paragraph 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The accused's failure to provide a specific defence resulted in a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The overlap of the offences under IPC necessitated the setting aside of one of the sentences. (Paragraphs 12-14)
Result: Criminal revision petition allowed in part; conviction upheld but sentencing under Section 279 set aside.
For the Petitioner:SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and sentence for ipc offenses confirmed (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. judgment and sentencing evaluation and correction (Para 6 , 13) |
| 3. prosecution's burden of proof met despite minor discrepancies (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. allowed revision petition in part, fine adjustment (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
M.G. UMA, J.
The revision petitioner being the accused in C.C.No.747/2011 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Lingasugur (for short ‘the Trial Court’) is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.12.2018, convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.8,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, with default sentences, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.51/2018 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, sitting at Sindhanur, (for short ‘the First Appellate Court’) by dismissing the appeal vide judgment dated 16.10.2023.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that, the father of the deceased lodged the first information against the accused for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. On the basis of the same, the FIR came to be registered and after investigation, final report came to be filed.
3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and registered C.C.No.747/2011. The accused appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but has not led any evidence in support of his defence.
4. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all the materials on record, came to the conclusion that, the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated above.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No.51/2018. The First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the materials on record, confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court by dismissing the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this revision petition.
6. Heard Sri Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
7. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?""
My answer to the above point is 'Partly in the Affirmative’ for the following:
REASONS
8. It is the contention of the prosecution that, the accused was the driver of the cruiser bearing Reg. No.KA-36/M-2617 and drove the same in a rash and negligent manner on Hatti-Sirwar road and dashed to the deceased Ayyamma-a child aged 9 years and caused her death. Thereby, he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.
9. In order to prove its contention, the prosecution has examined PW.1-the father of the deceased, who was also the eyewitness to the incident. PW.2-the mother of the deceased was also an eyewitness to the incident. PWs.3 to 9 are also examined as eyewitness to the incident. It is the contention of the prosecu
