Sri Paramesh Vs State by Arasikere Police Station

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:15262 CRL.RP No. 148 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 148 OF 2018 BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI PARAMESH S/O SRI NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, DRIVER OF PASSENGER AUTO BEARING NO.KA-06-B-9823 R/O SASALUKUNTE VILLAGE PAVAGADA TALUK - 561 202 TUMKURU DISTRICT

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NAUSHAD PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BY ARASIKERE POLICE STATION PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-561 202 REP. BY SPP

¶12

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

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

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.12.2017 PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO.5009/2016 BY HON'BLE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MADHUGIRI, CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PAVAGADA IN C.C.NO.303/2011, DATED 16.03.2016 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED SENTENCED TO UNDER GO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:15262 CRL.RP No. 148 of 2018

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri Naushad Pasha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

¶23

Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.303/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 304A of Indian Penal Code r/w Section 134 (a) and (b) and 181 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act.

¶24

The Order of conviction and Sentence was questioned before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5009/2016 and by considered judgment, dated 28.12.2017, learned judge in the First Appellate Court confirmed the order of conviction and sentence by dismissing the appeal.

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:15262 CRL.RP No. 148 of 2018

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

¶29

4.1. In respect of a road accident that occurred on 20.07.2011 between the period of 09.15 to 09.30 a.m. involving a passenger auto rickshaw bearing registration No.K.A.06/B-9823, near Thokala Palaiah’s land, on Hottebommanahalli – Lingadahalli road, Pavagada Taluk, one of the inmates of the auto rickshaw, Pavithra sustained grievous injuries on her head and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital and other inmates were also injured.

¶30

Jurisdictional police after registering the criminal case in this regard thoroughly investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet.

¶31

The presence of the accused was secured by the Trial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences and trial was held.

¶32

After due trial, learned Trial Magistrate formed an opinion that the accused being the driver of the auto rickshaw did not drive the same in a proper and diligent manner

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:15262 CRL.RP No. 148 of 2018

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

resulting in the accident and thereby inmates of the auto rickshaw sustained injuries and one of the inmates died.

¶37

It is also pertinent to note that the Trial Magistrate also noted that there was no explanation offered by the accused to the incident and therefore, order of sentence came to be passed.

¶38

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after reappreciation of the material on the record, dismissed the appeal.

¶39

Being further aggrieved by the same accused is before this Court.

¶40

Sri Noushad Pasha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that the accused was driving the auto rickshaw properly and the accident has occurred beyond human control and therefore, the conviction of the accused cannot be maintained.

¶41

Alternatively, Sri Noushad Pasha would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction recorded by learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court, taking note of the fact that the accused is an

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:15262 CRL.RP No. 148 of 2018

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

auto driver and he is required to maintain his family, may set aside the entire period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount and sought for allowing the revision in part.

¶46

Per contra, Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader while opposing the revision grounds supports the impugned judgment by contending that there is no dispute that because of the negligent driving of the auto rickshaw driver incident has occurred, wherein a valuable human life of Smt.Pavithra has lost and therefore no mercy can be shown to the accused and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto .

¶47

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶48

On such perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that revision petitioner is the driver of the auto rickshaw. Pertinently, there was no mechanical defect in the auto rickshaw. Place of accident is the proper motorable road. Incident has occurred in the broad day light. Therefore, it is to be inferred that because of the negligent driving of the driver of auto rickshaw incident has occurred.

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:15262 CRL.RP No. 148 of 2018

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Further, accused failed to offer any explanation to the incriminating circumstances. Therefore, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 (9) SCC 284 , the conviction order recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction.

¶53

Having said so, no special reasons are assigned by the learned Trial Magistrate for imposition of the sentence of one year for the offence under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code.

¶54

Accused is having a family to maintain and being the auto driver, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from one year to six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code, ends of justice would be met in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶55

Accordingly, the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) Criminal Revision petition is allowed in part .

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:15262 CRL.RP No. 148 of 2018

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences under Section 279, 337 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate of one year imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code is reduced to six months simple imprisonment.

¶62