Santosh S/O Hanumantappa Kolur Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 438 R/W 442 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE SENTENCE AND CONVICTION JUDGMENT DATED 31/01/2025 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.20/2014 BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR AND IMPUGNED ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE JMFC AT ANKOLA IN C.C. NO.283/2010 DATED 06/01/2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR AN OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279, 304-A OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10365 CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶23

Accused is before this Court in this revision petition

¶24

filed under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C, R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of JMFC, Ankola in C.C.No.283/2010 dated 06.01.2014 which is confirmed in Crl.A.No.20/2014 by the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Uttarakannada, Karawar vide judgment and order dated 31.01.2025.

¶25

The petitioner was tried before the Court of JMFC, Ankola in C.C.No.283/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304A of IPC and in the said case he was convicted for the charge sheet offences and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner in Crl.A.No.20/2014. It is under these circumstances, he is before this Court.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10365 CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the petitioner and legal representatives of deceased has been amicably settled and the legal representatives of deceased have come forward to receive compensation of Rs.1 lakh from the petitioner. He submits that in view of aforesaid, the judgment and order of conviction passed against the petitioner may be set aside. He submits that compensation of Rs.1lakh now paid is over and above the compensation that legal representatives of deceased have received in motor vehicle case that was filed separately before the jurisdictional Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal.

¶30

Learned HCGP on instruction submits that legal representatives of the deceased driver of Lancer car bearing registration No.KA-25-Z-3333 are before this Court and they have voluntarily agreed to receive the compensation amount from the petitioner.

¶31

The submission made on both sides is placed on

¶32

record.

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10365 CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

In the road traffic accident that had taken place on 12.02.2010 on Karwar-Ballari National Highway, the lorry bearing registration No.KA-28-A-3212, which was driven by the petitioner had dashed against the Lancer car bearing registration No.KA-25-Z-3333, which was driven by Nagesh Rudrappa Badiger and in the said accident Nagesh and three other inmates of the said car namely Smt. Sujatha W/o Balakrishna Shetty, Sulakshana W/o Bhujanga Shetty and Kum. Rishita D/o Bhujanga Shetty had died.

¶37

Sri Bhujanga M Shetty, who is legal representative representing the aforesaid three other deceased in the present case, has filed an affidavit before this Court that compensation that is agreed to be paid by the petitioner can be handed over to legal representatives of the deceased driver Nagesh Rudrappa Badiger and he and his family members have no objection for the same.

¶38

The affidavit filed by the Bhujanga M Shetty is

¶39

taken on record. In paragraph Nos.3 to 5 of the said affidavit it is stated as follows:-

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10365 CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

“3. I state that in the said accident along with my family members my driver namely Nagesh S/o: Rudrappa Badiger was also died. Now I along with legal heirs of the deceased car driver Nagesh and petitioner together we are ready and agreed to settle the matter amicably by intervention of elders. Therefore in view this of settlement, I am not claiming any kind of amount by way of compensation or fine from the petitioner. That whichever amount is ready to pay by the petitioner, let the petitioner to pay the entire amount to the deceased Nagesh family and I am completely agree with the same and I have no any objection to hand over the said compensation and to pay the compensation amount to the deceased Nagesh family. This affidavit I am swearing with my consent, free will and wish and without anybody's influence. Hence I am swearing this affidavit.

¶44

4. I state that, as per the terms and conditions of compromise, the petitioner is agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-(One Lakhs Rupees) as compensation to all the legal heirs of the deceased family members. I further state that, in that I along with legal heirs of the deceased driver Nagesh family, agreed with to receive the said compensation amount with great satisfaction. As I stated above I have no objection and I am freely agreed to handover entire amount to deceased driver Nagesh family. Let the deceased Nagesh family receive all the amount whichever is given by petitioner in this court.

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10365 CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

5. I state that, I humbly request this Hon'ble court to pleased to kindly compound the alleged offences and set aside the conviction/ sentence imposed by the both the courts below on petitioner and I have no any objection to acquit the petitioner from this case by setting aside the judgment of order of conviction.”

¶49

The offences for which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the Courts below are non compoundable offences. Taking into consideration the nature of offences and the sentence imposed on the accused, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HASI MOHAN BARMAN AND

¶50

ANOTHER VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER reported in (2008) 1 SCC 184 has held that Courts can consider reducing the sentence imposed on the accused having regard to the settlement arrived between the parties.

¶51

In the case of MANISH JALAN VS. STATE OF

¶52

KARNATAKA reported in (2008) 8 SCC 225 , wherein, the accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC, having regard to the settlement arrived between the parties and considering the affidavit filed by the mother of the victim in the said case,

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10365 CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

wherein, she had agreed to receive an additional compensation from the petitioner and had volunteered to compound the offences against him, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 16 and 17 has observed as follows:

¶57

"16.True that in the instant case the appellant has been found to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC for driving rashly and negligently on a public street and his act unfortunately resulted in the loss of a precious human life. But it is pertinent to note that there was no allegation against the appellant that at the time of accident, he was under the influence of liquor or any other substance impairing his driving skills. It was a rash and negligent act simpliciter and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition which is, undoubtedly despicable aggravated offence warranting stricter and harsher punishment.

¶58

17. Having regard to all these facts and bearing in mind the fact that the mother of the victim has no grievance against the appellant and has prayed for some compensation, we are of the view that a lenient view can be taken in the matter and the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced. We are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone but in addition thereto, the appellant should be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the mother of the deceased by way of compensation. The learned counsel for the

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10365 CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

appellant, in fact, indicated that his was willing to pay that much amount. We order accordingly."

¶62

It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner in the present case was driving the offending vehicle under the influence of liquor or any other substance impairing his driving skills. Accident is of the year 2010. The parties have inter se settled the dispute and an affidavit of Mr. Bhujang Shetty who is the legal representative of the deceased, who were inmates of the car has been filed before this Court. In the said affidavit he has stated that his driver Nagesh Rudrappa Badigera has also died in the accident and compensation amount can be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased driver. This approach of Bhujanga M Shetty is appreciable and the same is placed on record. In the affidavit he has stated that this Court may permit the parties to compound the alleged offences and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below. The legal representatives of the deceased driver Nagesh have submitted their willingness for settlement and also for permitting the parties to compound the alleged offences and they have stated that they have received cash of Rs.1 lakh from the petitioner

¶63

9 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10365 CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

today in the open Court. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that lenient view is required to be taken in the matter. Therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below is required to be modified.

¶67

12. Accordingly, the following :-

¶68

ORDER

¶69

(i) Criminal Revision petition is partly allowed.

¶70

(ii) The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 279 & 304A of IPC is confirmed. However, the order of sentence passed by the Courts below against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC is modified and the petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and he shall also pay the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- if not already paid, and in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

¶71

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10365 CRL.RP No. 100237 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

(iii) It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is now employed as a driver in KSRTC. Therefore, the order of conviction passed herein shall not affect his career and shall not be treated as remark for his employment in KSRTC.

¶74

Sd/(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶75

JUDGE

¶76

NMS/CT:BCK/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 95

Santosh S/O Hanumantappa Kolur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh S/O Hanumantappa Kolur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Nagaraj S/O. Veerappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Tippanna S/O Fakkirappa Madar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sarfaraj Mohammed S/O Iqbalsab Kaladagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sujata W/O Devashees Das Vs the State of Karnataka

Sharanappa S/O. Yamanappa Hunasihal Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavaraj Alias Basuraj S/O Krishnappa Madar Vs the State of Karnataka