IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100094 OF 2018 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

BASAVARAJ S/O. MAHADEVAPPA SATTIGERI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. YARAJERI, TQ. SAVADATTI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HUNGUND POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD.

…RESPONDENT Digitally (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

signed by V N V N BADIGER BADIGERDate:

2025.03.21

1 + 0 0 : 5 3 3 4 0 :27 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.PC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.02.2018 IN CRL.A.NO.83/2013 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 18.5.2012 IN C.C. 410/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNGUND, CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECTIONS 279, 338 & 304A OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER HEREIN OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 338 & 304A 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 by Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader of respondent.

2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.83/2013, is the revision petitioner.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

A complaint came to be lodged by PW-3, an eyewitness to the incident contending that on 10.02.2009 at about 11.45 p.m., on the State Highway, accused being the driver of a lorry bearing No.KA-22/B-1306 drove in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a motorcycle bearing No.KA-36/E-3083, which was proceeding from the opposite side.

3.1 In the said accident, the rider Naveenkumar Rudragouda Peerapur lost his life and pillion rider Nagaraj Sidramappa Chiniwal sustained grievous injuries.

3.2 On receipt of complaint, police thoroughly investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.3 Accused stood for trial as he denied the charges. Prosecution examined 7 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused besides marked 9 documents and one material object. Among them PW-3 is the complainant and PW-5 is the injured eyewitnesses-pillion rider of the motorcycle.

3.4 On conclusion of recoding of evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. recorded by the Trial Magistrate wherein accused denied all the incriminatory circumstances and did not place any defence evidence on record.

3.5 Thereafter, learned Trial Judge has heard the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused as referred to supra.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal came to be filed by the accused challenging the validity of the order of conviction and sentence.

5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court having heard the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused.

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

7. Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that written argument filed by the accused is not taken note of by the learned Trial Judge and so also the material evidence placed on recor