Partly allowed¶59

Sattar Baig v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2026CRL.RP/940/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision Section 397/401 CrPC; rash and negligent driving causing death; Section 279 IPC; Section 304(A) IPC; Section 187 Indian Motor Vehicles Act; sentence reduction to period already undergone; amicable settlement and compensation Rs.1,50,000 to deceased's daughter; affidavit of compromise; lenient view following Manish Jalan v. State of Karnataka (2008) 8 SCC 225; conviction confirmed, fine Rs.10,000 confirmed; Shivamogga courts; High Court of Karnataka 2026.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision petition partly allowed: conviction for Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC and Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicle Act confirmed; substantive sentence of imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone; fine sentence confirmed. ¶59

Sattar Baig Vs State of Karnataka — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether, in this revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below for offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC and Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act should be set aside, or whether — given the amicable settlement and compensation paid to the deceased's legal representative — only the substantive sentence should be modified.

¶19

Court's answer

The judgment and order of conviction passed against the petitioner by the courts below (Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC; Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act) is confirmed; the revision petition is disposed of by confirming the conviction and modifying only the substantive sentence.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

In view of the amicable settlement, the affidavit filed by the deceased's daughter admitting receipt of Rs.1,50,000/- compensation, and drawing on the approach in Manish Jalan v. State of Karnataka (2008) 8 SCC 225, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner, while the fine sentence is confirmed.

¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.), CRL.RP No. 940 of 2019, decided 19.02.2026. The petitioner, convicted by the III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Shivamogga in C.C.No.3215/2013 (judgment dated 30.10.2018) for offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC and Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act — sentenced to one year simple imprisonment plus Rs.10,000/- fine (default: further three months SI) — with conviction confirmed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in Crl.A.No.126/2018 (08.07.2019), sought relief under Sections 397/401 CrPC. During pendency, the parties amicably settled: the petitioner paid Rs.1,50,000/- compensation to Ramyashree, daughter of the deceased Kumar Bhaskar, who appeared in person, filed an affidavit dated 19.02.2026 reporting settlement and raising no objection. Relying on Manish Jalan v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 8 SCC 225, the Court confirmed the conviction and the fine, and reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone (petitioner reportedly in custody for about 20 days during trial). Petition partly allowed.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:10529 CRL.RP No. 940 of 2019

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 940 OF 2019

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SATTAR BAIG S/O YAKOOB BAIG AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, DRIVER

¶10

R/O KAGEKODAMAGGE VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 301.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SATEESHCHANDRA K.V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

BY SHIVAMOGGA TRAFFIC POLICE STATION

¶17

BY HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA SPP

¶18

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.3215/2013, DATED 30.10.2018

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10529 CRL.RP No. 940 of 2019

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304(A) OF IPC AND SAME IS CONFIRMED DATED 08.07.2019 IN CRL.A.NO.126/2018 BY THE III ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Accused is before this Court in this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in CC No.3215/2013 dated 30.10.2018 by the Court of III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC., at Shivamogga and the judgment and order passed in Crl. Appeal No.126/2018 dated 08.07.2019 by the Court of III Addl. Sessions Judge, at Shivamogga.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10529 CRL.RP No. 940 of 2019

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Petitioner herein was charge sheeted for

¶31

offences punishable under Section 279, 304(A) of IPC and Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act and was tried for the said offences by the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate at Shivamogga in Criminal Case No.3215/2013. The trial Court by judgment and order dated 30.10.2018 convicted the petitioner for the charge sheeted offences and for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of three months. No separate order of sentence was passed for the other offences. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner was confirmed by the Court of III Addl. Sessions Judge, at Shivamogga in Crl.Appeal No.126/2018 by judgment and order dated 08.07.2019. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:10529 CRL.RP No. 940 of 2019

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶36

dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the daughter of the deceased, namely, Ramyashree, has filed affidavit before this Court, reporting settlement. He submits that petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/(Rupees One lakh Fifty thousand only) to the legal representative of deceased Kumar Bhaskar as compensation. He submits that petitioner is a married man having children. He was in custody during trial for a period of about 20 days. He submits that the incident is of the year 2013 and at this juncture, if the petitioner is sent to jail, he and his family members will be put to hardship. He submits that in view of the settlement between the parties, the order of sentence passed by him may be modified.

¶37

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Jalan v. State of Karnataka reported in ( 2008) 8 SCC 225 , wherein the accused was convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under Section 279 and

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:10529 CRL.RP No. 940 of 2019

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

304(A) of IPC. In paragraph number 15 and 16 has

¶42

observed as follows:

¶43

"15.True that in the instant case the appellant has been found to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A, 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 simplicitor and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition which is, undoubtedly despicable aggravated offence warranting stricter and harsher punishment.

¶44

16.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. Learned counsel for the appellant, in fact, indicated that his client was willing to pay that much amount. We order accordingly."

¶45

5. In the present case, Ramyashree daughter of

¶46

deceased Kumar Bhaskar, has appeared before the Court

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:10529 CRL.RP No. 940 of 2019

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

in person and has filed an affidavit dated 19.02.2026 which is taken on record. In paragraph number 2 to 4 of the said affidavit, it is averred as follows:

¶51

"2. During the pendency of the above Revision Petition with an intervention of elders and well-wishers the parties have amicably settled the dispute.

¶52

3. I am the daughter of deceased Kumar Bhaskar and my mother is also no more. Hence I am ready to compromise the move matter and ready to receive Rs.1,50,000/as compensation.

¶53

4. That I have no objection for closed the petition / case against the petitioner. Hence the above petition may be allowed."

¶54

She has also admitted receipt of Rs.1,50,000/from the petitioner towards compensation. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this criminal revision petition is required to be disposed of by confirming the judgment and order of conviction passed against the petitioner by the Courts below and modifying the order of substantive sentence of imprisonment passed against him. Accordingly, the following:

¶55

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:10529 CRL.RP No. 940 of 2019

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

ORDER

¶59

Criminal Revision petition is partly allowed .

¶60

The judgment and order of conviction passed against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 279, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 187

¶61

of Indian Motor Vehicle Act by the Courts below, is confirmed.

¶62

The substantive sentence of imprisonment passed against the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the order of sentence imposing fine is confirmed.

¶63

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶64

PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Sattar Baig v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sattar Baig v. 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/S Srs Agencies Vs Mr. Lakshmanachari

H. H. Gowrish Vs Paramesha

Sri. Badrinath Ladda Vs Smt. D. Vijaya

Sri Munendra Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Gokulan K Vs M Arjunan