- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8915 CRL.RP No. 100233 of 2018 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. 100233 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: RANGASWAMAYYA S/O. GANGAYYA AGE: 42 YEARS,OCC: DRIVER, R/O: MALLOHALLI PALYA, TQ: DODDABALLAPUR-56000 DIST: BENGALURU. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ANURADHA DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH THROUGH P.S KERUR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PROCEEDINGS IN CRL. APPEAL NO.131/2013 IS PASSED ON 13.02.2017 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT AND TO PASS SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNDER REVISION I.E. CRL. A. NO.131/2013 DATED 13.02.2017 PASSED BY PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF SENTENCE IN C.C NO.261/2009 DATED 02.12.2013 PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BADAMI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 279 AND 304 A OF IPC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIHG COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8915 CRL.RP No. 100233 of 2018 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Smt. Anuradha Deshpande, learned counsel for the revision 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 dated 02.12.2013 passed in C.C. No.261/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badami (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), as well as the order dated 13.02.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.131/2013 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate Court’). 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 24.01.2009, the accused, while driving a lorry bearing registration No.KA-02/C-6192 from Hubli towards Bijapur, dashed against one Murigeppa Hosamani. As a result of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8915 CRL.RP No. 100233 of 2018 the injuries sustained, Murigeppa succumbed. The accused was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses, namely PWs.1 to 8, and produced 9 documents, marked as Exhibits P1 to P9. The trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence of PW.1-complainant, as per Ex.P1, and the testimony of PWs.5 and 6- eyewitnesses, held that the accused was driving the lorry at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the death of Murigeppa. The trial Court also took into account the evidence of PWs.2 and 3–panch witnesses. The Trial Court evaluating the material on record, concluded that the accused had committed the charged offences and accordingly imposed a sentence of six months’ imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC, and one year imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8915 CRL.RP No. 100233 of 2018 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.131/2013. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. Smt. Anuradha Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that PWs.5 and 6 were not eyewitnesses and that their presence at the scene of the accident has not been established. Therefore, their evidence is unreliable. It is further submitted that the testimony of PW.8 is in contradiction with the panchanama marked at Ex.P3. The learned counsel contends that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused for the charged offences. 7. On the other hand, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the case of the prosecution - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8915 CRL.RP No. 100233 of 2018 is established through the testimony of PWs.5 and 6, who are eyewitnesses. It is submitted that PWs.5 and 6 are independent witnesses. The learned Additional Government Advocate further contends that the occurrence of the accident is corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who are panch witnesses to the spot panchanama. It is further submitted that both the trial Court and the appellate Court have recorded concurrent findings based on the reliable and cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution. Hence, no interference is warranted with the impugned judgments. 8. Considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 9. The occurrence of the accident on 24.01.2009 involving the lorry bearing registration No.KA-02/C-6192, driven by the accused, and the resultant death of Murigeppa due to the injuries sustained in the said accident, is not seriously disputed. The involvement of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8915 CRL.RP No. 100233 of 2018 said vehicle in the accident is established through Ex.P5- the IMV Report. Ex.P4-the Post-Mortem Report, confirms that the deceased Murigeppa died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. PW.1-the complainant, reported the accident alleging that the accused was driving the lorry at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. PW.4-the wife of the deceased, also deposed that the death of her husband was due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Though PWs.1 and 4 are not eyewitnesses, PWs.5 and 6 have been examined as eyewitnesses and have given a complete account of the incident. Both the eyewitnesses were subjected to detailed cross-examination; however, their testimony remained unshaken. The trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record, held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused for the charged offences. The findings recorded by the trial Court were confirmed by the appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8915 CRL.RP No. 100233 of 2018 10. This Court has also examined the evidence referred to and relied upon by the trial Court. Upon such examination, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the trial Court stands confirmed. 11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, having regard to the year of the accident and the present family circumstances wherein the wife and two children are dependent on the earnings of the accused, the sentence of imprisonment may be substituted with that of fine. 12. Having regard to the year of the accident, i.e., 2009, and the present family circumstances, wherein the wife and children are dependent on the earnings of the accused, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8915 CRL.RP No. 100233 of 2018 13. The charged offences prescribe punishment with imprisonment, or with fine, or with both. If the sentence is modified to payment of fine, and such fine is directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, it would, to some extent, provide financial relief and mitigate the hardship caused to the family. 14. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence in C.C.No.261/2009 dated 02.12.2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badami, and order in Criminal Appeal No.131/2013 dated 13.02.2017 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, is hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8915 CRL.RP No. 100233 of 2018 (iii) The sentence of imprisonment is modified/substituted with fine of Rs.50,000/-. (iv) The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order before the trial Court. (v) In default of fine, the revision petitioner- accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. (vi) The trial Court shall release the fine amount in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased Murigeppa Hosamani, electronically on due identification. (vii) Bail bonds and sureties, if any, stands cancelled. This Court by the order dated 26.06.2025 issued Non-Bailable Warrant to secure the presence of the petitioner. The petitioner was produced before this Court on 09.07.2025. The petitioner-accused submitted to change his counsel. The petitioner was provided legal - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8915 CRL.RP No. 100233 of 2018 assistance through High Court Legal Services Authority, Dharwad (HCLSC). The HCLSC authorizes Smt. Anuradha Deshpande, learned counsel to represent the petitioner. Smt Anuradha Deshpande, learned counsel argued the matter on behalf of the petitioner. Though, petitioner is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC, the petitioner is sentenced to pay the fine and six weeks’ time is granted to pay the fine. On 09.07.2025, the petitioner is sent to judicial custody. It is submitted that he is in prison as on date. In the light of the modification of the sentence, the concerned jail authorities are hereby directed to release the petitioner/accused-Rangaswamayya, forthwith. The operative portion of this order shall be furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8915 CRL.RP No. 100233 of 2018 Pending I.A.’s if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1