1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRL.RP.No.200007/2015

BETWEEN:

DINESH,

S/O DAMU RATHOD,

AGE: 25 YEARS,

OCC : PAINTING WORK,

R/O : KEB QUARTERS FILTERBED,

GULBARGA-585102.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE TRHOUGH

TRAFFIC POLICE STATION,

GULBARGA-585102.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401

OF CR.P.C PRAYING THIS COURT TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL

REVISION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER

DATED 22.12.2014 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT GULBARGA IN CRIMINAL

APPEAL NO: 92/2012 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT

& ORDER DT: 17.08.2012 PASSED BY PRL. CIVIL JUDGE &

JMFC GULBARGA, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND

EQUITY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

State.

2.

The factual matrix of the case is that the

petitioner on 18.04.2010 at about 4.00 p.m., drove the

motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed

against the pedestrian, as a result the pedestrian

succumbed to the injuries and the offences under Sections

279 and 304A of IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of the

Motor Vehicles Act (‘MV Act’ for short) were invoked. The

accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and the

prosecution in order to prove the charges levelled against

him, relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6 and

Exs.P.1 to 7. The accused did not lead any evidence. The

Trial Court after appreciating both oral and documentary

evidence placed on record, convicted the accused for all

the charges.

3

3.

Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction

and sentence, Crl.A.No.94/2012 is filed. The Appellate

Court set aside the sentence and fine imposed in respect of

the offences under Sections 181 and 196 of MV Act and

confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence for the

offence under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. Hence, the

present petition is filed before this Court.

4.

The main contention of the petitioner before

this Court is that once the offence under Section 304A of

IPC is invoked, the Trial Court ought not to have convicted

the accused for the offence under Section 279 of IPC. The

learned counsel would contend that the Trial Court has

erred in jumping to the conclusion that the accident

occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the

petitioner and the very finding of the Trial Court is

erroneous and hence it requires interference of this Court.

5.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the State would contend that the

Trial Court has taken note of both oral and documentary

4

evidence placed on record and particularly considering the

evidence of P.Ws.1, 5 and 6 rightly comes to the

conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the

negligence on the part of the petitioner and there are no

grounds to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court.

6.

Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the State and also on perusal of the grounds

urged in the revision petition, the points that arise for the

consideration of this Court are:

(i)

Whether the Trial Court and the First

Appellate Court have committed an error

in convicting the accused for the offence

punishable under Sections 279 and 304A

of

IPC

and

whether

it

requires

interference by exercising the powers

under Section 397 read with Section 401

of Cr.P.C?

7.

Having considered the grounds urged in the

petition as well as the material available on record, the

Trial Court mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 5

5

and 6 and rightly comes to the conclusion that the accident

occ