- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21815 CRL.RP No. 829 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 829 OF 2017 BETWEEN: D S DEVARAJ S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT HOUSE No.48, 2ND MAIN ROAD JAIMARUTHI NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU CITY – 560 096. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRABHUGOUDA B TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN POLICE HASSAN DISTRICT REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE SENTENCE AND ORDER DATED 28.6.2017 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN DISTRICT (SIT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA) IN CRL.A.No.46/2017 IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 19.1.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHANNARAYAPATNA IN C.C.No.590/2012 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND ETC., Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21815 CRL.RP No. 829 of 2017 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 28.06.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.46/2017 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan sitting at Channarayapatna wherein the judgment of conviction dated 19.01.2017 passed in C.C.No.590/2012 by the II Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Channarayapatna convicting the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for brevity) has been affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent –State. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21815 CRL.RP No. 829 of 2017 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.10.2011 at about 3.00p.m., on Channarayapatna – Bengaluru National Highway -48 near Vadagal,the petitioner –accused drove Car bearing No.KA.01-MA-1415 in high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle of deceased Shivakumar bearing No.KA- 50-H-2999 and as result he sustained injuries and subsequently succumbed to injuries. 4. P.W.1 is relative of the deceased has filed complaint. The police after investigation have filed charge sheet against the petitioner –accused for aforesaid offences. The prosecution in order to prove charge has examined witnesses as P.W.1 to 7 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 10. The statement of the accused has been recorded as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate after hearing arguments on both sides and appreciating evidence on records has convicted the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. The petitioner has been - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21815 CRL.RP No. 829 of 2017 sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of 06 months and fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. The petitioner has challenged the said judgment of conviction before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.46/2017 and said appeal came to be dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court. The said judgment has been challenged by the petitioner in this Criminal Revision Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner –accused would contend that P.W.1 who is complainant, eye witness to the incident is brother in law of the deceased and he is interested witness and therefore, his testimony cannot be relied on. He further submits that another eye witness – P.W.7 has not supported the case of the prosecution and he turned hostile. The sketch –Ex.P7 indicate that one side road is under repair and other side of road has been - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21815 CRL.RP No. 829 of 2017 used by travelers on both sides. P.W.7 has stated that driver of the car i.e. the petitioner –accused who was driving it slowly. It indicates that the petitioner was not driving his car in rash and negligent manner. The prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubts that the petitioner drove his case in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Inspite of that the trial Court has convicted the petitioner and the Appellate Court has confirmed the conviction. With these he prayed to allow the Criminal Revision Petition and acquit the petitioner. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent –State would support the reasons assigned by the trial Court and the Appellate Court. It is further submitted that P.W.1 is eye witness who has specifically stated the manner in which accident took place and even though P.W.1 is relative of the deceased, there is nothing brought on record to disbelieve his testimony. On considering the sketch –Ex.P7 and place of accident on the road, it clearly demonstrates rash and negligent driving of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21815 CRL.RP No. 829 of 2017 the car by the petitioner –accused. With these he prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Petition. 7. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused the impugned judgments and trial Court records. 8. The accident has taken place on 03.10.2011 at about 3.00p.m., on a national highway -48. Ex.P7 is sketch of the scene of offence. On perusal of the said sketch it is clear that the accident has taken place on the left side of the road on which the deceased was riding his motor cycle and it is on the right side of the road on which the accused was driving his car. Ex.P2 –spot mahazar indicate that width of the said road is 22ft and spot is situated 6ft from left side edge of the road. Considering the said aspect it is clear that the car which was moving from Bengaluru towards Channarayapatna went on wrong side i.e., on its right side and dashed to the motor cycle. P.W.1 is eye witness to the incident and he has specifically stated that he has seen the accident when he was riding his auto rickshaw at a distance of 20mtrs and Indica car - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21815 CRL.RP No. 829 of 2017 came on right side and dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased. Nothing material has been elicited in the cross examination of P.W.1 to disbelieve his testimony. On perusing of Ex.P7 –sketch, the bike was found at distance of 50 ft from the spot and car stopped at distance of 60 ft from the spot and that itself indicate the speed of the car. The Motor Vehicle Inspector report –Ex.P5 indicate that five damages to the car and they are all on its front side and even wind screen glass was found damaged. The deceased was found with ten injuries and the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination has opined that the death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained. 9. Considering all these aspects, the prosecution has clearly established that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the petitioner. P.W.7 is inmate of the car of the petitioner and driver of the case was friend of his son in law. Therefore, it is natural for P.W.7 to support the driver of the car and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21815 CRL.RP No. 829 of 2017 therefore, he turned hostile. The learned Magistrate considering the facts and circumstances of the case and properly appreciating the evidence on record has rightly convicted the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. The Appellate Court re- appreciating evidence on record has rightly affirmed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court. 10. The petitioner was aged 29 years as on the date of incident. The accident took place in the year 2011 i.e., 15 years ago. The petitioner has undergone trial for 14 years. Now the petitioner is aged about 43 years. It is submitted that the petitioner is having wife and two minor children and he has to look after them. 11. Considering the said aspect, sentence requires to be modify for simple imprisonment for a period of one day till raising of the Court with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) for offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and fine of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21815 CRL.RP No. 829 of 2017 Rs.5,000/- (rupees Five Thousand only) for offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. Out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- (rupees One Lakh Forty Thousand only) has to be paid to Sri Raju father of the deceased -Shivakumar as provided under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. 12. In the result, the following ORDER i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. ii) The order of conviction for offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC is affirmed. iii) While affirming the conviction of the petitioner – accused for offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, the sentence imposed by the trial Court is modified to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one day till raising of the Court with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (rupees One Lakh Fifty - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21815 CRL.RP No. 829 of 2017 Thousand only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for period of two months. iv) While affirming the conviction for offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, the sentence imposed by the trial Court is modified as to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 07 days. v) Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- (rupees One Lakh Forty Thousand only) has to be paid to Sri Raju father of the deceased - Shivakumar as provided under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. vi) The petitioner –accused has to surrender voluntarily before the trial Court before commencement of Court hours to serve the order of imprisonment for a period of one day till raising - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21815 CRL.RP No. 829 of 2017 the Court and has to deposit the fine amount prior to surrender. vii) The trial Court has to secure Sri Raju father of the deceased -Shivakumar for disbursement of amount of the compensation. If the said Raju - father of the deceased is not available or not alive, other legal representatives of the deceased -Shivakumar are entitled for said amount of compensation. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22