Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/805/2017 of R MANJUNATHA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY on 22 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010380992017 NC: 2026:KHC:37891 CRL.RP No. 805 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.805 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. R. MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.805 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1.
R. MANJUNATHA,
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
DRIVER,
R/AT KULUVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562111.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. HARINI B.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY SRIRANGAPATNA POLICE STATION,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU–560001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF
CONVICTION
AND
SENTENCE
DATED
11.07.2017
CONFIRMING BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
JUDGE,
MANDYA
(SITTING
AT
SRIRANGAPATNA),
IN
CRL.A.NO.50062016, THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 30.01.2016 PASSED BY
THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SRIRANGAPATNA
IN C.C.NO.13/2015 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 279 AND 304(A) OF IPC AND ALLOW THIS CRL.RP.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State.
2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The Trial Court taken note of the eye-witness evidence while appreciating the evidence and the Appellate Court also while considering the appeal, re-appreciated the same and found the eye-witness evidence and here is the case of death of two persons in an accident and when this Court comes to the conclusion that no grounds are made out to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court, at this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the accident was taken
HC-KAR
place in the year 2015 and almost a decade has been elapsed and hence, in lieu of the sentence, compensation may be awarded to the family of the deceased.
3. The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of MAHADEVANNA D.M. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER passed in SLP (Crl.)No.4563/2022 dated 18.05.2026, while considering the similar set of facts in a case of BMTC driver, imposed fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, payable towards compensation to the family of the deceased.
4. In the case on hand, the revision petitioner is a driver in a white board car and on account of death of two persons, this Court found that justice would be met if compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- each is awarded to the children of the deceased for the death of two persons i.e., husband and wife instead of sending the revision petitioner to serve the sentence.
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The criminal revision petition is disposed of.
(ii) The revision petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- each for the death of two persons as compensation in lieu of sentence and eight weeks time is granted to deposit the amount before the Trial Court.
(iii) On deposit of the amount before the Trial Court, the Trial Court is directed release the amount in favour of the children of the deceased, on proper identification.
(iv) If the revision petitioner fails to deposit the amount within eight weeks, the revision petitioner has to suffer the sentence as ordered by the Trial Court.
(v) The revision petitioner is also directed to deposit the amount of Rs.10,000/- before the Trial Court as fine.
6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that an amount of Rs.10,000/- is already deposited before the Trial Court as fine. Hence, while depositing the balance amount before the Trial Court, the
HC-KAR
revision petitioner is directed to produce the receipt for having deposited the amount of Rs.10,000/-. If the same is not deposited, the revision petitioner is directed to pay the amount before the Trial Court.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70