Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/391/2026 of SRI HARISH A N Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 3 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:33168 CRL.RP No. 391 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 391 OF 2026 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. HARISH A N SON OF NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 391 OF 2026
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SRI. HARISH A N
SON OF NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT AKKAJIHALLI,
HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 121.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJANNA B C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
KORATAGERE POLICE STATION
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 129
REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT, COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438
R/W SEC.442 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF CONVICTION AND ORDER ON SENTENCE PASSED
BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS, AT KORATAGERE IN C.C.NO.664/2016 DATED
17.01.2025 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION OF
THE SENTENCE PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV ADDL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE TUMAKURU, SITTING AT MADHUGIRI IN
CRL.A.NO.5002/2025 DATED 29.01.2026, IN THE ABOVE CASE.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The factual matrix of case of the respondent- State is that on 04.09.2016 at about 12.30 p.m., within the limits of Koratagere Police Station, in front of the house of one Thimmagangaiah on Tumakuru-Madhugiri Road, when CW2 and CW3, along with Puttaganagaiah were doing reliance cable work at the western side edge of the road, at that time, the accused drove the tipper lorry in a rash and negligent manner in reverse direction from Tumakuru side towards Koratagere side endangering human life and hit Puttaganagaiah. Due to this accident, Puttaganagaiah sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries attracting the offence under section 279, 304(A) of IPC is invoked.
HC-KAR
3. The accused did not plead guilty and he claimed trial. The prosecution examined PW1, who is the brother of the deceased, PW2 & PW3, the eyewitnesses and PW4 & PW5, the mahazar witnesses and PW6, the Investigating Officer. The trial Court, considering eyewitnesses and evidence of PW2 and PW3, convicted and sentenced the accused for six months and the same is confirmed in the appeal.
4. Both the Courts failed to take note of the ingredients of the offence under Section 279 merge with the more serious offence under Section 304(A). Therefore, the question of separately invoking Section 279 does not arise, and the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 279 deserves to be set aside. However, considering the evidence of PW2 and PW3 who are the eyewitnesses and their evidence is consistent and the same is taken note of by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and hence, I do not find any grounds to
HC-KAR
reverse the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304(A).
5. However, taking into note that the accident was taken place in the year 2016 and already a decade has been elapsed and it is an accident and not an intentional act. It is also apt to take note of the judgment of the Apex Court regarding accidents that occurred over a decade ago, no meaningful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to prison to undergo sentence. To meet the ends of justice, this Court can provide compensation to the family of the deceased, who was 42 years old and the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an amount of compensation may be awarded in favour of the family of the deceased and hence, it is appropriate to meet the ends of justice by directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- within a period of six weeks from today.
HC-KAR
6. If he fails to deposit the amount within six weeks, he shall undergo a sentence for six months which is ordered by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. On deposit of the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, the trial Court is directed to release the amount in favour of the wife of the deceased, securing her and release the amount of Rs.2,75,000/- on proper identification. The remaining amount of Rs.25,000/- shall vest with the State.
7. With the aforesaid, the revision petition is disposed of.
8. The Registry is directed to send the records to the trial Court forthwith to enable the revision petitioner to deposit the amount and make the payment in favour of the wife of the deceased. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
DS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26