Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22104

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V Srishananda, J
Yarrappa Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
CRL.RP No. 1424 of 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.Vinayaka, Lakshmikanth K
For the Respondents: K.Nageshwarappa

In a criminal revision against a conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death (S. 304A IPC), the court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse, especially when the accused fails to offer a defense or mitigate the sentence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A - Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 181, 196 - Conviction for rash and negligent driving resulting in death and grievous injuries - Concurrent findings of guilt by Trial and Appellate Courts affirmed - Appellate court in revision cannot re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or illegal.

(B) Sentencing - Leniency - Petitioner fled the spot without assisting injured - Absence of mitigating circumstances - Concurrent sentences maintained. (Paras 33, 34, 36)

Facts of the case:
The accused, driving a jeep, lost control on the Pavagada-Penakonda road, causing the vehicle to fall into a ditch. One occupant succumbed to injuries, and others sustained simple and grievous injuries. The accused was convicted by the trial court under various sections of the IPC and IMV Act, which was upheld by the First Appellate Court. The petitioner challenged the conviction and requested a reduction in sentence.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the prosecution successfully proved the rash and negligent driving through witness evidence and spot panchanama. The accused failed to offer any explanation during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The court found no legal grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction and the appropriateness of the sentence.

Issues: Whether the conviction for rash and negligent driving is sustainable based on the evidence, and whether the sentence warrants leniency.

Ratio Decidendi: Where evidence confirms rash and negligent driving leads to death and injury, and the accused fails to provide any defense or show mitigating circumstances, the appellate court will not disturb the concurrent findings of guilt or the quantum of sentence.

Result: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of conviction and sentencing for road traffic offenses. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. summary of trial proceedings and evidence presentation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. arguments regarding conviction validity and sentence mitigation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. re-evaluation of evidence and affirmation of conviction. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
5. final dismissal of the revision petition. (Para 38)

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1424 OF 2022

(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

YARRAPPA REDDY

S/O LATE PATHAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

R/AT KADAMALAKUNTE VILLAGE,

PAVAGADA TALUK,

TUMAKURU DISTRICT,

PIN-572 116.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI R.VINAYAKA FOR SRI LAKSHMIKANTH K, ADVOCATES)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY PAVAGADA POLICE STATION,

PAVAGADA TALUK,

TUMAKURU DISTRICT,

REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

BENGALURU-560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2020 PASSED IN C.C.NO.203/2008 BY THE LEARNED PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PAVAGADA AND CONFIRMED IN CRL.A.NO.5010/2020 DATED 13.10.2022 BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKURU SITTING AT MADHUGIRI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279, 337, 338, 304A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 181, 196 OF IMV ACT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri R. Vinayaka, appearing on behalf of Sri Lakshmikanth K., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.203/2008 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338, 304A of Indian Penal Code and under Section 181 and 196 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced as under:

 The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of two months and pay fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable U/section 279 of I.P.C and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

 The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of one year and pay fine of Rs. 8000/- for the offence punishable U/section 304-A of I.P.C and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.

 The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of two months and pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable U/section 337 of I.P.C and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of 2 days.

 The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of two months and pay fine of Rs. 800/- for the offence punishable U/section 338 of I.P.C and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of 2 days.

 The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 400/-, for the offence punishable under Section 181 of I. M. V Act and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 02 days.

 The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 800/-, for the offence punishable under Section 196 of I. M. V Act and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 02 days.

 Acting U/s 357 (1) of Cr.P.C, considering circumstance of the case the CW-9 by name Smt. Rangamma is the wife of the of deceased Sannappaiah, hence she is entitled for the compensation, hence compensation is awarded Rs. 6000/- (Six Thousand) and CW-2 has sustained the grevious injuries in the accident, hence he is entitled for the compensation, hence compensation is awarded Rs. 1000/- (One Thousand).

 Office is directed to pay compensatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22104

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAV Srishananda, JYarrappa Reddy – AppellantVersusState Of Karnataka – RespondentCRL.RP No. 1424 of 2022

In a criminal revision against a conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death (S. 304A IPC), the court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse, especially when the accused fails to offer a defense or mitigate the sentence.

Cases Referred (1)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V Srishananda, J
Yarrappa Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
CRL.RP No. 1424 of 2022