- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8914 CRL.RP No. 100171 of 2021 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. 100171 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: TAMMANNA S/O. SIDDAPPA SUTAGUNDI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC, DRIVER, R/O: NINGAPUR S.K. NOW AT HANUMASAGAR VILLAGE, POST KAMBAGI, TQ: BABALESHWAR, DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. S. PATIL AND SRI. MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADVOCATES) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BILAGI POLICE STATION, NOW REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT 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 CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 10/07/2019 PASSED IN CRL. APPEAL NO.104/2012 BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE THEREBY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 21/09/2012 PASSED IN C.C.NO.178/2011 BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BILAGI AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 279, 304(B) OF IPC. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIHG COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8914 CRL.RP No. 100171 of 2021 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 S.S. Patil and Sri Mahantesh R. Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner-accused, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 2. The present criminal revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.09.2012 passed in C.C. No.178/2011 by the Court of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.07.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.104/2012 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate Court'). 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.03.2011, the accused, being the driver of the KSRTC - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8914 CRL.RP No. 100171 of 2021 bus bearing registration No.KA-01/F-8145, while driving on the Mudhol–Chikkalagundi public road, drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused it to dash against a child named Akshata. As a result of the said accident, the child sustained injuries and died on the spot. An FIR came to be registered, and upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). 4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses as PWs.1 to 10 and marked 11 documents as Exhibits P1 to P11. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the trial Court. The accused, in his defence, marked 2 documents as Exhibits D1 and D2. The Trial Court on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8914 CRL.RP No. 100171 of 2021 for a period of one year for the offence under Section 304- A of IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.104/2012. The appellate Court, on re-appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. Sri S.S. Patil and Sri R. Patil, learned counsels for the petitioner, submit that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and not on account of any rash or negligent act on the part of the accused-petitioner. It is submitted that the accused was driving the bus with due care and caution, and the accident was caused by the sudden and unexpected entry of the child, Akshata, onto the road. The learned counsel further contend that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8914 CRL.RP No. 100171 of 2021 evidence on record is insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the prosecution has established its case through the evidence of PW.1, who is an eyewitness to the incident. The learned AGA further submits that the testimonies of PWs.2, 3, 4 and 5 corroborate the version of PW.1 and collectively establish the guilt of the accused. It is contended that the trial Court, upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, has rightly recorded the conviction, and therefore, no interference is called for. 8. Considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 9. The accident in question occurred on 26.03.2011 at about 9:00 a.m. on the Mudhol– Chikkalagundi road and involved a KSRTC bus bearing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8914 CRL.RP No. 100171 of 2021 registration No.KA-01/F-8145, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. The accused has been identified as the driver of the said bus at the time of the accident. The involvement of the vehicle in the accident is established through Exhibits P6 and P10. Exhibit P8-the post-mortem report, confirms that the cause of death was the injuries sustained in the accident. Though several grounds have been urged challenging these aspects, no substantial arguments were advanced to dispute the factual details regarding the occurrence of the accident, the identity of the vehicle, or the resultant death of the child. The primary contention raised is that the accused was not rash or negligent in driving the bus at the time of the incident. 10. The point that falls for consideration is whether the accused was, in fact, rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, thereby causing the accident. PW.1, an eyewitness to the incident, has given a detailed account of the events. During cross-examination, the defence suggested that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8914 CRL.RP No. 100171 of 2021 accident occurred due to the deceased Akshata suddenly crossing the road without observing the oncoming bus. This suggestion was denied by the witness. PW.5, another eyewitness, initially turned hostile and did not fully support the prosecution case. However, in his cross- examination, he admitted to having witnessed the accident and stated that the deceased Akshata was walking by the side of the road towards her school when the bus hit her. 11. Further, the documentary evidence, including the spot sketch marked as Exhibit P6 and the photographs marked as Exhibits P1 to P4, support the prosecution case and indicate that the accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner. The width of the road where the accident occurred is 18 feet, and the impact took place at the extreme left side of the road. Exhibits P2 and P4 also reveal the presence of hutments close to the roadside, which required the driver to exercise greater caution. Despite such surroundings, the accident occurred, indicating negligence on the part of the driver. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8914 CRL.RP No. 100171 of 2021 12. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, held the accused guilty of the offences charged. The appellate Court, on re-assessment of the said evidence, confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. This Court has also perused the material evidence on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for both parties. The evidence placed on record is sufficient to establish that the accused caused the accidental death due to rash and negligent driving. The findings recorded by the trial Court are based on duly proved evidence. This Court finds no infirmity or error in the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court in recording the conviction. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused is affirmed. 13. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence of imprisonment may be modified to one of fine. In support of the said plea, it is submitted that the petitioner is employed as a driver with the KSRTC and that the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment would adversely affect his service - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8914 CRL.RP No. 100171 of 2021 conditions. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family, which comprises his wife and minor children. 14. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, the fact that the accident occurred as far back as in the year 2011, and taking into consideration the present family circumstances of the petitioner and his service conditions, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence imposed by the trial Court. Furthermore, if the sentence is modified to one of payment of fine, and such fine is directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased Akshata, it would serve as a measure of financial assistance and also to some extent mitigate the hardship caused due to the loss of a family member. Considering the financial status of the accused, this Court deems it appropriate to impose a fine of Rs.50,000/-. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8914 CRL.RP No. 100171 of 2021 15. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 21.09.2012 in C.C.No.178/2011 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi and judgment of conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No.104/2012 dated 10.07.2019 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction. (iii) The sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court is modified to payment of fine of Rs.50,000/-. (iv) The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner/accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trail Court. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8914 CRL.RP No. 100171 of 2021 (v) The trial Court shall pay the fine amount deposited by the revision petitioner in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased viz., Akshata, through electronically after due identification. (vi) The bail bonds and sureties if any, shall stand cancelled. (vii) The conviction and imposition of fine shall not affect the service conditions of the petitioner/accused. Registry to return the TCR forthwith along with a copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27