2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 30368
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
JAGADEESH S/O GANGAYYA MATAPATHI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.RP 100247 / 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100247 OF 2017 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
JAGADEESH S/O. GANGAYYA MATAPATHI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. KALLADEVAR, TQ. BYADAGI, DIST. HAVERI.
…PETITIONER (BY SMT.SHEBA KHANAPUR, AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY P.S.I. OF RURAL P.S., RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI, R/BY. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
…RESPONDENT Digitally signed by (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
V N V N BADIGER BADIGERDate:
2025.03.21
1 + 0 0 : 5 3 3 5 0 :20 THSI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN C.C.NO. 19 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC RANEBENNUR AND TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 19.06.2017 IN CRL. A NO. 16 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI SITTING AT RANEBENNUR AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMNET AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 19.02.2014 IN C.C.NO. 19 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC, RANEBENNUR CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337 AND 304-A OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 66(1) READ WITH SECTION 192 OF MV ACT, AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 304-A OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Smt.Sheba Khanapur, Amicus Curie for petitioner and Sri. Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
2. Accused to suffer an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304A of IPC R/W section 66(1) r/w Section 192 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced as under, which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.16/2014 is the revision petitioner.
”Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C, accused is hereby held guilty for the offences under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC and U/S 66(1) r/w Sec. 192 of MV Act and is accordingly convicted for the said offences.
the accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 700/- for the offence punishable U/S 279 of IPC, I/D he shall undergo a S.I for a period of one month.
He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs
300/- for the offence punishable U/S 337 of IPC, I/D he shall undergo a S.I for a period of one month.
He is further sentenced to undergo S.I for six months for the offence punishable U/S 304-A of IPC and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/-, and I/D to pay fine, he shall undergo a S.I for a further period of one month.
He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and I/D shall undergo a S.I. For 3 months for the offence punishable U/s 66(1) R/w Sec. 192-A of MV Act.
The above sentences shall run concurrently.
His bail bond and surety bond hereby stand canceled.”
3. Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the revision petition are as under:
3.1 Police Sub-inspector, Rural Police Station, Ranebennur filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC and Section
66(1) R/W Section 192 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act.
3.2 Based on the complaint, wherein it is alleged that on 29/01/2011 at about 6:45 PM accused being the driver of Mahindra goods vehicle bearing No.KA-27/A-4128 along with Puttavva alias Galemma from Ankasapur towards Udagatti in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied the break in the process of over taking another vehicle. As a result, an inmate of the vehicle namely Puttavva fell down from the vehicle on the road and sustained fatal head injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
3.3 Learned trial Magistrate after taking cognizance recorded the plea of the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty, therefore trial was held.
3.4 In order to establish the case of the prosecution,