- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8896 CRL.RP No. 100039 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100039 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMESH, S/O. VENKATARAJAPPA, AGED 43 YEARS, R/AT: MANGAPUR VILLAGE, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL.H.R. AND SRI R.B. PRAKASH, ADVOCATES) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PSI KUMARAPATNAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RANEBENNURU IN C.C.NO.332/2018, DATED 17/01/2019 FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 279, 304-A, OF IPC 1860 SEC. 134 R/W 187 IMV ACT AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN CRL. APPEAL NO.14/2019, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNURU) DATED 07/11/2019 AND CALL FOR RECORDS IN C.C.NO.332/2018 ON THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RANEBENNURU. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIHG COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8896 CRL.RP No. 100039 of 2020 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 Heard Sri Sunil H.R. and Sri R.B. Prakash, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused, 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 of sentence dated 17.01.2019 passed in C.C. No. 332/2018, and the order dated 07.11.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2019. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.02.2013 at about 1:45 p.m., the accused, while driving a lorry bearing No. KA-51/B-0139 in a rash and negligent manner, hit a motorcycle bearing No. KA-27/V-9477 which was parked on the roadside in front of the Synthite Factory gate. The person standing next to the parked motorcycle sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The accused was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8896 CRL.RP No. 100039 of 2020 the Indian Penal Code and Sections 134 read with 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and marked 15 documents as Exhibits P1 to P15. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. The Trial Court, based on the evidence of four eyewitnesses—PWs.3, 5, 8, and 9, held that the accused was guilty of the charged offences. Accordingly, it recorded a conviction and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC, one year for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC, and one month for the offence under Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. The accused, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 14/2019. The Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8896 CRL.RP No. 100039 of 2020 6. Sri Sunil H.R., learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, submits that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who is stated to have suddenly entered the national highway. It is submitted that, in order to avoid the accident caused by the sudden entry of the deceased onto the highway, the accused took all possible precautions. Despite this, the accused had to risk his own life, resulting in the lorry toppling. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence of all four eyewitnesses suffers from inconsistencies regarding the position of the deceased. It is contended that PWs.5, 8, and 9—who were cited as eyewitnesses, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. 7. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the prosecution has established its case through the testimony of eyewitnesses, namely PWs.3, 5, 8, and 9. It is submitted that, although PWs.5, 8, and 9 did not support the case of the prosecution, the remaining evidence on record is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and to establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8896 CRL.RP No. 100039 of 2020 the offending lorry by the accused. The learned AGA further submits that both the trial Court and the appellate Court, having duly considered the evidence on record, have rightly recorded the conviction of the accused. 8. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the records. 9. The occurrence of the accident on 17.02.2013 involving the lorry bearing registration No. KA-51/B-0139, driven by the accused, is not in dispute. According to the prosecution, the deceased had parked his two-wheeler and was standing by the roadside when the accused, due to rash and negligent driving, hit the deceased and his motorcycle, resulting in the deceased’s death. PW3, an eyewitness to the incident, has given a complete and consistent account of the occurrence. The prosecution has established that PW3 witnessed the accident, and his presence at the scene is not in doubt. Though the other three witnesses—PWs.5, 8, and 9, did not support the case of the prosecution, the remaining evidence on record is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. Ex.P9, the postmortem report, opines that the cause of death - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8896 CRL.RP No. 100039 of 2020 was cardio-respiratory failure resulting from a head injury sustained in the road traffic accident. The fact that the deceased suffered such injuries in the accident involving the lorry driven by the accused is also not in dispute. The evidence of PW5, who was the cleaner of the lorry, confirms that the accused was driving the lorry at the time of the accident. This fact has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. The issue that remains for consideration by this Court is whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the accused. Ex.P1 – Spot Panchanama, Ex.P2 – Spot Photographs, and Ex.P12 – Spot Sketch corroborate the testimony of PW3. Ex.P12 indicates that the deceased was standing approximately 5 feet away from the edge of the road on the left side. The total width of the road is 24 feet. Viewed from any angle, it is difficult to accept the defence set up by the petitioner that the accident occurred due to the sudden entry of the deceased onto the national highway. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 provide a fair depiction of the scene of the accident. A perusal of Ex.P2 reveals that the road in question is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8896 CRL.RP No. 100039 of 2020 straight and free of visible obstructions. Furthermore, it is evident that the lorry toppled after the accident. It is implausible that the lorry would have toppled merely due to the application of brakes to avoid an accident. The fact that the vehicle overturned strongly suggests that it was being driven at a high speed. Unless the lorry was moving at such speed, it is highly unlikely that it would have toppled. 11. The trial Court, upon consideration of the aforesaid evidence, rightly concluded that the accused had committed the offences with which he was charged. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence, has correctly affirmed the said finding. This Court has also independently perused the material on record and is satisfied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the trial Court, as affirmed by the Appellate Court, stands confirmed. 12. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the sentence of imprisonment be modified to that of fine, taking into consideration the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2013, and the present family - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8896 CRL.RP No. 100039 of 2020 circumstances wherein the accused is the sole earning member, and his wife and children are dependent on his income. It is further submitted that imposition of a sentence of imprisonment would cause undue hardship to the family. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal cases. This submission is not disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate. 13. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2013, and considering the potential hardship that may be caused to the accused's family, comprising his wife and children, in the event he is sentenced to imprisonment, this Court is inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also relevant to note that the offences in question prescribe punishment with imprisonment, or with fine, or with both. Furthermore, if the fine amount is directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, it would, to some extent, provide financial relief and mitigate the hardship occasioned by the loss of a family member. 14. In light of the above findings and observations, the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8896 CRL.RP No. 100039 of 2020 ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The order of conviction as recorded in C.C. No.332/2018 dated 17.01.2019 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Ranebennur and order in Crl.A. No.14/2019 dated 07.11.2019 on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur), are hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction. However, the sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court is modified to fine of ₹1,00,000/-. (iii) The fine amount shall be deposited before the Trial Court within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) In default of payment of fine within the time as ordered, the revision petitioner/accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court. (v) The Trial Court shall release the fine amount in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased electronically on due identification. (vi) The bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8896 CRL.RP No. 100039 of 2020 Registry to return the trial Court records along with a copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE CLK CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6