The court upheld conviction for negligence leading to death but reduced the two-year sentence to six months, emphasizing legal standards for culpable negligence in traffic cases.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

Heard Sri. Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

2. Accused is the revision petitioner, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.26/2013 for the offences under Section s 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’), and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 304A of IPC. 3. The validity of order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.43/2017. Learned Trial Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and by a Judgment dated 21.10.2020, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence.

4. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court in this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that, the learned Trial Judge has miserably failed to appreciate the material evidence placed on record and wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition.

6. Alternatively, Sri Shivanand Pattanashetti, would contend that, in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, sentence of two years for the offence under Section 304A of IPC may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount and to that extent, the revision petition may be allowed.

7. Per contra, Smt. Arati Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned Judgments by contending that, in the case on hand, the death of Sri. Mallesh is not in dispute as per the postmortem report at Ex.P.6. Sri. Mallesh, who was moving on the motorcycle lost his life. Therefore, the grounds urged in the revision petition cannot be countenanced in law.

8. Further, she contended that, there was no explanation whatsoever offered by the accused in respect of the incident, whereby the trolley of the tractor being driven by the accused, dashed against the motorcycle, resulting in the incident and in the absence of any such explanation, the conviction order needs to be maintained.

9. Insofar as alternative submission is concerned, Smt. Arati, learned High Court Government Pleader, contended that, in the absence of any explanation, learned Trial Judge was justified in granting punishment of two years for the offence under Section 304A of IPC and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, in the case on hand, road traffic accident occurred on

31.10.2012 at about 6.30 a.m. on Adavikhanapur-Aroli Road, near the agricultural land of Virupakshappagouda involving a tractor-trailer and a motorcycle is not in dispute.

11. Because of the impact of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on the head and the brain had protruded from the skull and the eyeballs were also protruded from the original position. The accident was reported by an eyewitness to the family members of the deceased. Postmortem report marked at Ex.P.6 makes it clear about the injuries sustained and death is on account of the accidental injuries.

12. Admittedly the revision petitioner was the driver of the tractor and trolley. Police after thorough investigation, filed the chargesheet. Chargesheet is not challenged by the accused.

13. Further, an eyewitness to the incident is