- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19837 CRL.RP No. 718 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 718 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SRI L PANDU S/O LAKSHMANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESISING AT BAVIKERE VILLAGE TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 549. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHREYA K V, ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH LAKKAVALLI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGLAURU -01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 28.03.2014 PASSED BY THE SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. J.M.F.C., TARIKERE IN C.C.No.26/2013 AND TO SET ASIDE THE CONFIRMED JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 5.4.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.No.66/2014 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 338 Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19837 CRL.RP No. 718 of 2017 AND 304(A) OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 187 OF IMV ACT AND MAY BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AND ALLOW THE R.P.AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 05.04.2017 passed in Crl.A. No. 66/2014 by the Principal District Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru whereunder the judgment of conviction dated 28.03.2014 passed in C.C. No. 26/2013 by Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Tarikere, convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 279, 338, 304(A) of IPC and 187 of IMV Act and sentence passed thereon are affirmed. 2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent - State. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30.10.2012 at about 10.45 p.m., on T.M. Road before Sainath Rice Mill situated at Lakkavalli Village, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19837 CRL.RP No. 718 of 2017 petitioner - accused being driver of Tempo Cruiser bearing No. KA-14-A-2427 has driven the said vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the said vehicle against Dr. T.B. Prasad (P.W.2) and Sri. Narayana Rao from their backside, who were walking on the left side of the footpath of the road. As a result of which, Dr. T.B. Prasad (P.W.2) has sustained serious injuries to his chest and head and Sri. Narayana Rao who had sustained serious injuries succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The petitioner - accused has not intimated the incident to the nearest Police station and fled away with the vehicle. Son of Sri. Narayana Rao, namely Sri. G.N. Lokesh (P.W.1) has filed a complaint. The Police after investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioner for offence noted supra. 4. The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW12 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. 5. The trial Court after hearing arguments on both sides has convicted the petitioner - accused as noted - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19837 CRL.RP No. 718 of 2017 above. The petitioner challenged the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence before the Sessions Court in Crl.A. No. 66/2014 and the same came to be dismissed affirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. 6. Learned Amicus Curiae would contend that the accident has taken place at 10.45 p.m. i.e. in the night hours and the evidence on record will not establish that the petitioner was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. 7. Learned HCGP would contend that P.W.8 who is the owner of the vehicle has given evidence that petitioner was his driver, he had taken the vehicle on the date of incident and after the accident, he had intimated regarding the accident at 12.00 midnight. The trial Court considering the entire evidence on record and appreciating the evidence has rightly convicted the petitioner for the said offence. He further submits that the appellate Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19837 CRL.RP No. 718 of 2017 on re-appreciation of the evidence has confirmed the judgment of conviction. 8. P.W.2 to P.W.4 are eye witnesses to the incident. P.W.2 was walking along with the deceased on the footpath at the time of accident. P.W.2 has also sustained grievous injuries in the accident. The evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 and Ex.P.13 establish that the Tempo Cruiser KA-14-A-2427 has caused the accident which resulted in the death of Sri. Narayana Rao and caused injuries to P.W.2. 9. Learned Amicus Curiae would contend that the fact of petitioner driving the said Tempo Cruiser at the time of accident has not been established. P.W.8 is one Sri. Sham and his evidence indicate that he has purchased the vehicle from one Sri. Shekhar who is his cousin and the vehicle continued in the name of said Sri. Shekhar as vehicle was not transferred. He has deposed that accused was driving his cruiser vehicle on the date of incident and intimated him about the accident at 12.00 midnight. The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19837 CRL.RP No. 718 of 2017 Investigating Officer has given notice to P.W.8 who has given his reply stating that the accused was the driver of the vehicle on the date of the accident. The accused has not taken up the defence either in the trial Court or in the appellate Court that he was not driving the vehicle on the date of accident. Therefore, now in this revision petition he cannot take up the said contention. Considering all these aspects, the trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner for the said offence and the appellate Court, rightly re- appreciating the evidence on record, has affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. 10. Learned Amicus Curiae would submit that the accused was aged about 35 years as on the date of accident which took place in the year 2013 and he has faced trial for 12 years and he is now aged about 47 years and prayed to reduce the sentence of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount. 11. Considering the fact that the petitioner has faced trial for 12 years and he is now aged 47 years, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19837 CRL.RP No. 718 of 2017 having family responsibilities, the sentence of imprisonment requires to be reduced by enhancing the fine amount. 12. The trial Court has not passed any sentence for offence under Section 279 of IPC. 13. Sentence passed by the trial Court for offence under Section 338 IPC is reduced from 6 months to 1 month by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. The sentence of imprisonment passed for offence under Section 304-A IPC is reduced from 2 years to 6 months by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.25,000/- with default sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. Sentence passed for offence under Section 187 of IMV Act shall remain unaltered. 14. With the above terms, revision petition is partly allowed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE LRS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56