- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9284 CRL.RP No. 100293 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. 100293 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: 1. KISHOR (ISHWAR) SUBBA BHANDARI, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER R/O. HALE HERAVATTA, TQ. KUMTA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581332. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KUMTA POLICE STATION, REPTD. BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD- 580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 11.10.2021 PASSED BY Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9284 CRL.RP No. 100293 of 2021 THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.75/2013, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 02.04.2013 PASSED BY THE JMFC, KUMTA IN C.C.No.433/2010 SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304-A IPC IS CONCERNED. 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 of sentence passed in C.C. No. 433/2010 dated 02.04.2013 by the Court of the JMFC, Kumta (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’), and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Crl.A. No.75/2013 dated 11.10.2021 by the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9284 CRL.RP No. 100293 of 2021 3. Brief facts: It is the case of the prosecution that the accused, being the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. KA-30-6366, on 12.01.2010, drove the said lorry from Kumta to Chandavar in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against a compound wall and ran over one Laxman Narayan Bhat, and also ran over a TVS Star City motor vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-47- E-6043, which was parked inside the compound. As a consequence of the accident, the said Laxman Narayan Bhat sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined witnesses as PWs.1 to 10 and marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.16. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the accused got marked Exs.D.1 and D.2. The Trial Court appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9284 CRL.RP No. 100293 of 2021 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. For the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 30 days. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.75/2013 before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, and confirmed the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. 6. Sri Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the prosecution evidence on record is not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused for the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9284 CRL.RP No. 100293 of 2021 alleged offences. Learned counsel submits that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers from contradictions, and such benefit ought to be extended to the petitioner. It is further submitted that in view of the said contradictions, the evidence lacks corroboration. Learned counsel also submits that none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed regarding rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. Lastly, it is submitted that the material witnesses are interested witnesses and, therefore, not reliable. 7. On the other hand, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent- State, submits that the prosecution has proved its case through PWs.3 and 5, who are eyewitnesses, and whose presence at the scene is not in doubt. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the occurrence of the accident is not in dispute. PW.8 – Motor Vehicle Inspector, as per Ex.P.13 – M.V.I. Report, has stated that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect. It is further submitted that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have recorded concurrent findings based on the evidence on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9284 CRL.RP No. 100293 of 2021 8. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The accident that occurred on 12.01.2010 at about 10:45 a.m., involving the lorry bearing Registration No. KA-30-6366 and the TVS Star City motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA- 47-E-6043, is not in dispute. Though two vehicles were involved in the accident, the motorcycle was parked inside the compound, and the lorry dashed against it after colliding with the compound wall. The deceased, Laxman Narayan Bhat, was residing in the house where the accident occurred and was standing next to his motorcycle at the time of the incident. Exs.P.4 to P.6 are the spot photographs which establish the occurrence of the accident involving the offending lorry and the death of the deceased. Ex.P.12 – Post-Mortem Report confirms that the deceased, Laxman Narayan Bhat, died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Further, it is not disputed that the accused was driving the said lorry. In view of the above evidence, the prosecution has established the involvement of the offending lorry, driven by the accused, in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9284 CRL.RP No. 100293 of 2021 the accident, and that the death of Laxman Narayan Bhat was caused due to the injuries sustained therein. 10. The next question that requires consideration by this Court is whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the accused. PW.8 – Laxminarayan P. Nayak, Motor Vehicle Inspector, as per Ex.P.13, has certified that the accident was not caused due to any mechanical failure. PWs.3 and 5, the eyewitnesses, have provided a complete account of the incident. Their presence at the scene of the accident is established. Though the defence extensively cross-examined PWs.3 and 5, their testimonies have remained unshaken. The evidence of PWs.3 and 5 is consistent with the narration of the incident as recorded in Ex.P.3. Hence, the evidence on record is mutually corroborative and sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused in relation to the charged offence. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, have rightly held the accused guilty of the charged offence. This Court has also examined the aforementioned evidence. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9284 CRL.RP No. 100293 of 2021 11. It is evident on careful perusal of the evidence on record, that the findings recorded by both the Courts are justifiable, well-reasoned, and based on proper appreciation of the material on record. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not point out any error or infirmity warranting interference with the impugned orders. Hence, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court, as confirmed by the Appellate Court, stands affirmed. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence pertains to the year 2010, at which time the accused was 26 years old. It is further submitted that the accused is now married, and his family, including his wife and children, are dependent on his earnings. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for modification of the sentence of imprisonment to that of fine. 13. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2010, and considering the present family circumstances wherein the wife and children are dependent on the earnings of the accused/petitioner, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence. It is also relevant to note that the offence - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9284 CRL.RP No. 100293 of 2021 in question prescribes punishment with imprisonment or fine or both. Further, if the fine amount is directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, it may not compensate for the loss of life, but would, to some extent, provide financial assistance and mitigate the hardship caused to the family due to the loss of the earning member. 14. Accordingly, the following order; (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The order of Trial Court in C.C.No.433/2010 dated 02.04.2013 and further confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.75/2013, dated 11.10.2021, is hereby confirmed to the extent of recording conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. (iii) The sentence imposed to undergo imprisonment is modified by substituting with fine amount of Rs.75,000/-. (iv) Six weeks' time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9284 CRL.RP No. 100293 of 2021 (v) The Trial Court shall disburse the fine amount electronically in favour of the legal heirs of deceased Laxman Narayan Bhat after due identification. (vi) If default in payment of fine amount, the accused- petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Trial 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.: 33.