- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9285 CRL.RP No. 100256 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. 100256 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. SUBHASH, S/O MALAVVA MADAR, AGE 29 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O LINGADAL, TAL. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SAJID AHMED GOODWALA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH MURGOD POLICE STATION, NOW REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01/09/2021 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI IN CRL.A.No.60/2021 BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9285 CRL.RP No. 100256 of 2021 11/02/2021 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAUNDATTI, IN C.C.No.799/2016 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 279, 337, 338, 304(A) OF IPC AND U/S 134 AND 187 OF M.V. ACT, BY ALLOWING THE TOP NOTED PETITION. 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 Sajid I. Goodwala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State. 2. The accused has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in C.C. No. 799/2016 dated 11.02.2021 by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Saundatti (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’), and the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in Crl.A. No. 60/2021 dated 01.09.2021 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9285 CRL.RP No. 100256 of 2021 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 24.05.2016 at about 4:30 p.m., near Jeevapur Village on the Yaraghatti– Munavalli Road, the accused drove his Ashok Leyland Tipper bearing registration No.KA-24/7501 from Yaraghatti towards Munavalli in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life, and collided with a Maruti Suzuki Zen car bearing registration No. KA-22-MA-2299, which was being driven by accused No.2 from the opposite direction. As a result of the accident, accused No.2-driver along with one Shailashree Chandrakanth Mohite and one Shreya Suvidya Kumar Mohite, who were occupants of the car, succumbed to the injuries. The other occupants of the car sustained light to serious injuries. It is alleged that after the accident, accused No.1 fled from the spot without informing the Police. The Police, after registering the FIR, conducted investigation and filed a charge sheet against accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134 r/w 187 of the MV Act. 4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and marked 22 documents as Exhibits - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9285 CRL.RP No. 100256 of 2021 P.1 to P.22, statement of accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court, considering the testimonies of the witnesses and appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 337, 304A of IPC and under Sections 134 read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 60/2021, wherein the Appellate Court, considering the material on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of the Trial Court. 6. Sri Sajid I. Goodwala, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the prosecution witnesses PWs.1 and 3 to 5 are interested witnesses and their evidence is not reliable. It is submitted that PWs.3 to 5 were inmates of the car in which the deceased persons were travelling, and in order to claim compensation for the injuries sustained, they have falsely deposed against the accused. Learned counsel further submits that though PW.8 was an inmate of the tipper lorry, he was a stranger and his testimony cannot be considered as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9285 CRL.RP No. 100256 of 2021 independent evidence, and therefore is not worthy of reliance. It is thus contended that the evidence on record is insufficient to sustain the conviction for the offences charged. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State submits that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that although PWs.1 and 3 to 5 have partially turned hostile, their evidence remains consistent with regard to the rash and negligent act of the accused. 8. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It is evident from the material on record that the occurrence of the accident on 24.05.2016 involving Ashok Leyland Tipper bearing registration No. KA-24/7501 and Maruti Zen car bearing registration No.KA-22/MA-2299 is not in dispute. The fact that the deceased persons died due to the injuries sustained in the said accident is established through Exhibits P.7 to P.9. The involvement of the vehicles in the accident is proved by Exhibit P.21, which also indicates that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9285 CRL.RP No. 100256 of 2021 accident did not occur due to any mechanical defect in the lorry. 10. The next question to be considered is whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the accused. The complaint at Exhibit P.1 narrates the details of the incident. Though PW.1 lodged the complaint based on information received, the contents of Exhibit P.1 are corroborated by the evidence of PWs.3 to 5 and PW.8. While PWs.3 to 5 have turned partially hostile, their evidence remains consistent to the extent that the accused was driving at excessive speed and that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, appreciating the evidence on record, rightly concluded that the accused was driving rash and negligent which regulated in the accident. 11. This Court, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, scrutinized the evidence recorded by the Trial Court. Upon careful examination of the same, it can be found that the findings of the Trial Court are based on the duly proved evidence led by the prosecution. The conclusion arrived - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9285 CRL.RP No. 100256 of 2021 at by the Trial Court is well-supported by the material on record and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference. The Appellate Court, independently appreciating the evidence, has rightly confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court stands confirmed. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, having regard to the date of the accident, the age of the accused at the relevant time, and the present family circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment may be modified to one of fine. The evidence at Exhibits P.3 and P.14, namely the spot sketch and related material, indicate some contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Zen car, it cannot be conclusively held that the accused alone was at fault. 13. Though the nature of the accident and the resultant loss of life may ordinarily warrant imposition of a sentence of imprisonment, considering the fact that the incident occurred in the year 2016, the age of the accused at the time of the accident, and his present family condition being the sole - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9285 CRL.RP No. 100256 of 2021 breadwinner responsible for the care of his aged parents this Court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment may be modified to a sentence of fine. It is also relevant to note that the offence in question prescribes punishment with imprisonment or fine or both. Furthermore, if the amount of fine is directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, though it may not adequately compensate for the loss of life, it may provide some measure of financial assistance to them. 14. Accordingly, the following order; (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The order of the Trial Court in C.C.No.799/2016, dated 11.02.2021 and further confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.60/2021, dated 01.09.2021, is hereby confirmed to the extent of recording conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of IPC and Section 134 r/w Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. (iii) The sentence imposed to undergo imprisonment is modified by substituting with fine amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9285 CRL.RP No. 100256 of 2021 (iv) Four weeks time' is granted to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court. (v) The trial Court shall disburse the fine amount of Rs.40,000/- to each of the legal heirs of the deceased persons namely, Prasad @ Prashanth Ashok Bhosale, Shailashree Chandrakanth Mohite and Shreya Suvidya Kumar Mohite. electronically, after due identification. (vi) If default in payment of fine amount, accused- petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by Trial Court. (vii) Bail bond, 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.: 30