- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19737 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 31 OF 2018 BETWEEN: NAGARAJ S/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED 33 YEARS RESIDING AT IN FRONT OF PWD OFFICE AMBEDKAR NAGAR, MALUR KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PSI, MALUR POLICE STATION MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. N ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 11.02.2015 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MALUR IN C.C.No.461/2013 CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.10.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR IN CRL.A.No.9/2015 AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED IN C.C.No.461/2013 AND ETC., Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19737 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2018 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 11.10.2017 passed in Crl.A. No. 9/2015 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, whereunder the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 11.02.2015 passed in C.C. No. 461/2013 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, convicting the petitioner – accused for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC has been affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent- State. 3. Case of the prosecution is that on 18.05.2013, at about 08.30 pm near Yashvantapur gate which is situated in between Malur Hosakote main road, the petitioner – accused being driver of Maruti Swift car HR- 12-S-5545 drove the same in high speed and in negligent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19737 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2018 manner coming from Malur towards Hosakote and overtook a lorry and while doing so, dashed to a two wheeler KA02-X-8981 which was being driven by the deceased Jayaram and due to the said accident, Jayaram died on the spot. 4. The trial Court appreciating the prosecution evidence, i.e. P.W.1 to P.W.7 and documents has convicted the petitioner – accused for the aforesaid offences. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction petitioner filed Crl.A. No. 9/2015 and the same came to be dismissed affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the identity of the accused has not been proved properly. There is no scientific evidence with regard to brake marks on the spot and spot mahazar – Ex.P.2 is bald in that regard. Evidence of P.W.2 – a relative of the deceased cannot be relied on as he is an interested - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19737 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2018 witness. Evidence of P.W.3 – another eye witness will not prove that the petitioner has caused the accident. 6. Learned HCGP has supported the reasons assigned by the trial Court and the appellate Court and prays for dismissal of the revision petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties this Court has perused the impugned judgments and trial Court records. 8. The accident occurred on Malur – Hosakote road at 08.30 pm on 18.05.2013. On perusal of Ex.P.8 – sketch of the accident spot it is seen that the accident has occurred on right side of Malur – Hosakote road. Swift car was coming from Malur towards Hosakote and the accident has occurred on the right side of the road. The deceased was riding his two wheeler from Hosakote towards Malur and he was on his left side. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are eye witnesses would indicate that the driver of the Swift car was over taking a lorry and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19737 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2018 at that time he dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased and as a result, the deceased died on the spot. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has much highlighted on the proof of identity of the petitioner as driver of Swift car. The owner of the Swift car has stated that he had appointed this petitioner as driver to his car. The petitioner neither in the trial Court nor in the appellate Court has disputed that he was driving the Swift car on the date of accident, i.e., on 18.05.2013. Therefore, now in this revision petition he cannot take the said contention as both the Courts have held that the petitioner was driving the Swift car and caused the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased Jayaram – rider of the motorcycle. The fact that the Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report indicate that the Swift car bearing No. HR-12-S-5545 was having 5 damages which are noted in Ex.P.5. Even the motorcycle of the deceased was also noted with 4 damages in the said Ex.P.5. P.W.2 has identified this petitioner as driver of the Swift car and he - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19737 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2018 caused the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased Jayaram. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner also much highlighted on not mentioning of any brake marks in Ex.P.2 – spot mahazar. If there are brake marks found on the spot they ought to have been mentioned in the spot mahazar – Ex.P.2. Merely because brake marks are not mentioned in Ex.P.2 – spot mahazar it cannot be said that the panchas and Investigating Officer who have drawn Ex.P.2 – spot mahazar have not noted the brake marks found at the spot. P.W.5 is one of the panchas to the spot mahazar – Ex.P.2 and he has not been asked with details of the spot and brake marks in his cross-examination. Considering all these aspects the trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. 11. The trial Court has sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year for offence under Section 279 of IPC and to pay fine of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19737 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2018 Rs.1,000/-. The petitioner has also been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 304-A of IPC. 12. The maximum sentence which can be imposed for offence under Section 279 of IPC is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 6 months or fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or both. Even though the maximum sentence which can be imposed for offence under Section 279 of IPC is imprisonment for 6 months, the trial Court has imposed sentence of imprisonment for a period of 1 year. Therefore, the said sentence of imprisonment for offence under Section 279 of IPC is erroneous. 13. Section 304-A of IPC provides for imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or both and the trial Court has imposed simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000/-. 14. The accident has occurred in the year 2013. The petitioner was aged 28 years as on the date of offence - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19737 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2018 and he faced trial for 12 years till now. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is having aged parents to look after and prays for reduction of sentence of imprisonment. 15. Considering the fact that the petitioner is now aged 40 years, having aged parents and faced trial for 12 years, sentence of imprisonment requires to be reduced by enhancing the fine amount. 16. In the result, the following; O R D E R i. Petition is allowed in part. ii. The conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 279 read with Section 304-A of IPC is confirmed. iii. Sentence of imprisonment imposed for offence under Section 279 of IPC is reduced and the petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month for offence under Section 279 of IPC. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19737 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2018 iv. Petitioner is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for offence under Section 304-A of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month. v. The fine imposed for offence under Section 279 IPC in a sum of Rs.1,000/- is retained. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77