- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8913 CRL.RP No. 100221 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. 100221 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: SHRI. CHETANSINGH VENKATSINGH RAJPUT AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: DHUPDAL, TQ: GOKAK, DIST BELAGAVI-591218. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PSI, CHIKKODI, CHIKKODI P.S.,CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591201 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH ICURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT 20/11/2020 PASSED BY THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT CHIKKODI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.264/2019 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKODI IN C.C.NO.885/2015 FOR OFFENCES U/S 279 AND 304-A IPC AND THEREBY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER /ACCUSED. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL 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:8913 CRL.RP No. 100221 of 2020 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Vittal S. Teli, 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 17.07.2019 passed in C.C. No.885/2015 by the II Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chikkodi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), and the judgment dated 20.11.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.264/2019 by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikkodi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate Court’). 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.01.2015 at about 7:00 a.m., while the complainant was standing outside, the complainant’s younger brother was crossing the road near their house. At that time, the driver of a Cruiser vehicle bearing registration No.KA-49/M-1159, by driving the vehicle at an excessive speed and in a negligent manner, dashed against the complainant’s younger brother (the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8913 CRL.RP No. 100221 of 2020 deceased–Yuvaraj), who sustained a head injury and died on the spot. 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 order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.8 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. 5. The trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence of PW.1-the eye-witness, and PW.7-the Investigating Officer, held that the prosecution had proved the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 279 IPC, and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8913 CRL.RP No. 100221 of 2020 6. The accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.264/2019 before the appellate Court. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence recorded by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 7. Sri Vittal S. Teli, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner–accused, submits that the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 5 does not conclusively establish the commission of the alleged offences by the accused. Learned counsel contends that PWs.1 and 3-the alleged eyewitnesses, have not deposed that the accused was the driver of the Cruiser vehicle bearing registration No.KA-49/M-1159. It is further submitted that mere speed of the vehicle, in the absence of other material particulars, does not by itself constitute rashness or negligence so as to attract the ingredients of the charged offences. 8. On the other hand, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent- State, submits that the evidence of PWs.1 and 3-the eyewitnesses, establishes that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It is further - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8913 CRL.RP No. 100221 of 2020 submitted that the other material on record proves that the accused was, in fact, driving the said vehicle. The trial Court, on the basis of the evidence so adduced, rightly held the accused guilty of the charged offences. 9. Considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 10. The occurrence of the accident on 12.01.2015 at about 7:00 a.m. involving the Cruiser vehicle bearing registration No.KA-49/M-1159 is not in dispute. The death of Yuvraj, aged 12 years, as a result of the injuries sustained in the said accident caused by the offending vehicle, is also not in dispute. Ex.P9-the IMV report, establishes the involvement of the said vehicle in the accident. Ex.P6-the post-mortem report, certifies the cause of death as cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to hypovolemic neurogenic shock due to cerebral hemorrhage and fracture of the skull and humerus bone. Other documents on record, namely Exhibits P2, P3, and P4, corroborate that the death occurred due to injuries sustained in the accident involving the offending vehicle driven by the accused. During the course of arguments, although the learned - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8913 CRL.RP No. 100221 of 2020 counsel for the petitioner made submissions questioning the correctness of the findings recorded by the trial Court, he did not dispute the involvement of the vehicle, the identification of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle, or the fact that the deceased succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident. Hence, detailed discussion on these aspects is not warranted. 11. An overview of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court clearly establish the guilt of the accused in respect of the charged offences. The finding recorded by the trial Court is based on cogent and credible evidence. Further, no material has been placed on record to contradict the prosecution's case. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused stands upheld. 12. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner earnestly persuaded this Court to consider modifying the sentence of imprisonment to one of fine, having regard to the year of the accident, the age of the accused, and his present family circumstances. It is submitted that the accused - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8913 CRL.RP No. 100221 of 2020 is the sole breadwinner of his family, which comprises his wife and minor children. 13. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2015, and considering the present family circumstances of the petitioner, who has a wife and minor children solely dependent on his earnings, this Court is inclined to accept the submission for modification of the sentence. Furthermore, the offences charged prescribe punishment of imprisonment, or fine, or both. An additional relevant consideration is that if the fine amount is directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, it would not only provide financial assistance but also serve to mitigate, to some extent, the hardship caused by the loss of a family member. In view of the financial condition of the petitioner as submitted, this Court deems it appropriate to levy fine amount of Rs.75,000/-. 14. Accordingly, the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8913 CRL.RP No. 100221 of 2020 ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence in C.C.No.885/2015 dated 17.07.2019 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chikkodi and order in Criminal Appeal No.264/2019 dated 20.11.2020 passed by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikkodi, is hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction. (iii) The sentence of imprisonment is modified/substituted with fine of Rs.75,000/-. (iv) The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of eight 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. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8913 CRL.RP No. 100221 of 2020 (vi) The trial Court shall release the fine amount in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased Yuvraj, electronically on due identification. (vii) Bail bonds and sureties, if any, stand cancelled. The Registry is directed to return Trial Court records along with copy of this order. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22