- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9449 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 100246 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. TIMMAPPA , S/O. IRA GOUDA, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: NAJEGAR, KELAGINOOR, TAL: HONNAVAR, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581342. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HONNAVAR POLICE, R/BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR C/R) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 17.09.2021 PASSED BY THE PRL.DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.123/2011. CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9449 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2021 DATED 20.10.2011 PASSED BY THE PRL. JMFC, HONNAVAR IN C.C.No.109/2011 SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304-A IPC IN CONCERNED AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304-A IPC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 2. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 20.10.2011 passed in C.C. No.109/2021 by the Principal JMFC, Honnavar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’), and the judgment dated 17.09.2021 passed in Crl.A. No.123/2011 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9449 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2021 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 26.12.2010 at about 6:00 p.m., near the toll gate at Kasarkod Hiremath on NH-17, the accused, being the driver of a Tempo Trax bearing registration No. KA-47-2935, drove the vehicle from Bhatkal towards Honnavar in a rash and negligent manner and struck a pedestrian by name Juje, who died on the spot as a result of the impact. The Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses, who were marked as PWs-1 to 9, and produced 10 documents, which were marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-10. The accused adduced evidence and produced 2 documents marked as Exhibits D-1 and D-2, and his statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Trial Court, upon considering the testimonies of the witnesses and the evidence on record, convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, in default of which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9449 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2021 period of three months. The accused was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, in default of which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. 5. The accused, being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, filed Criminal Appeal No.123/2011 before the Appellate Court, which modified the order of conviction by setting aside the sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, while confirming the remainder of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court. 6. Sri Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased pedestrian. It is contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is contradictory and not reliable. It is also urged that the findings recorded by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9449 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2021 Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are based on insufficient and unsatisfactory evidence. 7. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the prosecution has proved its case by examining eyewitnesses whose testimonies have remained consistent. It is submitted that the contradictions, if any, are minor in nature and do not affect the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is based on duly proved and reliable evidence. 8. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The occurrence of the accident on 26.12.2010 at about 6:00 a.m., involving the Tempo Trax bearing registration No. KA-47-2935, is not in dispute. The evidence on record establishes that the accused was driving the said Tempo Trax at the time of the accident. The death of the pedestrian due to the injuries sustained in the accident is also not in dispute and stands proved through Exhibit P-9, the post-mortem report, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9449 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2021 which opines that the cause of death was multiple injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. The involvement of the said vehicle in the accident is further corroborated by Exhibit P-10, the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report. Based on the aforementioned evidence, the prosecution has proved the involvement of the offending vehicle driven by the accused and the resultant death of the pedestrian due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. 10. The next question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. The prosecution has examined PWs-1 and 3 to 6 as eyewitnesses to the incident. The presence of these eyewitnesses at the scene of the accident is not in doubt. All the eyewitnesses have consistently deposed that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash manner and at excessive speed at the time of the accident. Though these witnesses were subjected to cross-examination, no material contradictions could be elicited. Hence, their evidence remains unshaken and inspires confidence. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9449 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2021 11. The occurrence of the accident at the alleged place is also established through Exhibits P-2 and P-3 – the spot mahazar, which has been proved through the evidence of PWs-1 and 3. Exhibit P-4 is the spot sketch prepared by PW-7. A perusal of Exhibit P-4 indicates that the width of the road is 23 metres. Though the vehicle driven by the accused was on the left side of the road, with sufficient space on both sides, the spot of the accident is shown to have several cross roads connecting to the highway. Additionally, a Toll Plaza is located within a distance of 92 metres from the place of the accident. Exhibit P-4 further reveals that, apart from cross roads, there are other structures in the vicinity suggesting pedestrian movement, as well as warning signboards. Even if the contention of the petitioner that the deceased pedestrian was negligent is accepted, it must be noted that the accused was required to exercise due care and caution, particularly at the said location. 12. The Trial Court, on consideration of the aforesaid evidence, rightly held that the accused had committed the offences with which he was charged. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on duly proved evidence on record. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9449 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2021 The Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence, modified the order and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has not made out any ground warranting interference with the order of conviction. Hence, the conviction stands confirmed. 13. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence of imprisonment may be modified to one of fine, having regard to the year of the accident and the change in the family circumstances of the accused. It is submitted that the petitioner is married and that his family, consisting of his wife and children, is dependent on his earnings. 14. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2010, and considering the family circumstances of the petitioner who is the sole breadwinner for his wife and children this Court is of the view that the case warrants a lenient approach by substituting the sentence of imprisonment with that of fine. It is also relevant to note that the offences in question are punishable with imprisonment or fine or both. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9449 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2021 Such an approach would be reasonable for yet another reason, if the fine amount is directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, it may not fully compensate the loss of life, but it would, to some extent, mitigate the financial hardship caused by the loss of a family member. 15. Accordingly, the following, order (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The order of the Trial Court in C.C. No.109/2011, dated 20.10.2011 and further confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.123/2011, dated 17.09.2021, is hereby confirmed to the extent of recording conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A of IPC. (iii) The sentence imposed to undergo imprisonment is modified by substituting with fine amount of Rs.50,000/-. (iv) Six weeks' time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9449 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2021 (v) The Trial Court shall disburse the fine amount electronically in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased Juje after due identification. (vi) In default of the payment of fine amount, accused- petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Appellate Court. (vii) Bail bonds if any, shall stand cancelled. (viii) Registry to return the Trial Court records along with copy of this order. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE HMB/MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28