- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8160 CRL.RP No. 100167 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100167 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI. REVANNA S/O. SIDDARAMAYYA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: HOSADURGA VILLAGE, RANGENAHALLI POST, TQ: TARIKERE, DIST: CHIKKAMAGALURU-577144. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVRAJ S.BALLOLI, ADVOCATE AND SMT. POOJA S.BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH SIDDAPUR POLICE STATION, UTTAR KANNADA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2020 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5025/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 16.07.2016 PASSED IN CC NO.1018/2014 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED JMFC, SIDDAPUR AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 338 AND 304-A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 BY ALLOWING THE TOP NOTED REVISION PETITION TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8160 CRL.RP No. 100167 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Shivraj S. Balloli, 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 challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in C.C. No.1018/2014 dated 16.07.2016, and the order passed in Criminal Appeal No.5025/2016 dated 18.03.2020. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.07.2014 at about 8:55 a.m., the accused, while driving a lorry bearing registration No. KA-01/B-5666 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed from Sirsi towards Siddapur, collided with a Hyundai Santro car bearing registration No. KA- 34/M-7375. In the said accident, one Subray Gajanan Hegde sustained fatal injuries and succumbed. The accused was charged with offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses as PWs 1 to 9, and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8160 CRL.RP No. 100167 of 2020 produced 19 documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P19, in addition to two material objects marked as MOs 1 and 2. Upon appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of IPC, and accordingly sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, 6 months for the offence under Section 338 IPC, and 1 year for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 5025/2016. The Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order dated 16.07.2016 passed by the Trial Court. 5. Sri Shivraj S. Balloli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the prosecution has examined PWs.1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 as eyewitnesses in support of its case. Among them, PWs.1, 6, and 7 were inmates of the car involved in the accident, while PWs.4 and 5 are stated to be independent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8160 CRL.RP No. 100167 of 2020 witnesses. Learned counsel contends that the evidence of all five witnesses would indicate that the accused, who was driving the lorry, was not rash or negligent. It is further submitted that the accident occurred in a ghat section, and the lorry, which was loaded, was moving uphill, thereby making it improbable for the vehicle to gain speed so as to be driven in a rash and negligent manner. On the contrary, it is submitted that the car, which was moving downhill, was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and was responsible for the alleged accident. It is also submitted that the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court is excessive and requires reconsideration. 6. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent–State, submits that the testimony of all the witnesses clearly establishes that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. It is further submitted that Ex.P4 – the spot sketch – clearly demonstrates the negligence on the part of the accused. It is also submitted that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, upon due appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, have rightly recorded - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8160 CRL.RP No. 100167 of 2020 concurrent findings holding the accused guilty of the charged offences. On these submissions, the learned Additional Government Advocate prays for dismissal of the revision petition. 7. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. The occurrence of the accident on 16.07.2014 involving the lorry bearing registration No. KA-01/B-5666 and the Santro car bearing registration No. KA-34/M-7375 is not seriously disputed. The death of one Subray Gajanan Hegde due to the grievous injuries sustained in the said accident is also not in dispute. The only issue that requires consideration by this Court is with regard to the rashness and negligence of the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident. A careful perusal of the testimonies of PWs.1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 indicates that while it is stated that the lorry was not being driven at a high speed, speed alone cannot be the determinative factor to establish rashness or negligence. Rash and negligent driving can occur even when a vehicle is being driven at a slow speed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8160 CRL.RP No. 100167 of 2020 On a further consideration of Ex.P4 – the spot sketch, the possibility of contributory negligence on the part of the car driver also cannot be ruled out. The spot sketch (Ex.P4) reveals that the width of the road is 18 feet and the point of impact is 6 feet from the left edge of the road, which indicates that the lorry had moved to the right side, beyond the middle of the road. However, it is also to be noticed that the driver of the car had sufficient space to pass, but failed to avoid the accident. In such circumstances, the only possible conclusion that can be drawn is that both drivers contributed to the occurrence of the accident. 9. On perusal of the orders passed by both the Courts, it is seen that the findings are well-reasoned and supported by the evidence on record. No ground is made out to warrant interference with the concurrent finding insofar as the conviction of the accused is concerned. 10. Having held that the driver of the car also contributed to the occurrence of the accident, the next issue that arises for consideration is the correctness of the sentence imposed on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8160 CRL.RP No. 100167 of 2020 submits that the accused was not solely responsible for the accident and that the incident occurred due to circumstances beyond his control, particularly as it was the rainy season. It is further submitted that the lorry was carrying a full load of goods and, given its weight, it was unlikely that the vehicle could have been driven at high speed. It is also submitted that the accused has no prior criminal antecedents or involvement in any other offences. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that a lenient view be taken with regard to the sentence imposed. The aforesaid submission is not disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate. 11. Having regard to the fact that the incident occurred in the year 2014, the age of the accused, and the further circumstance that he is the sole breadwinner of his family, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence is concerned. It is also pertinent to note that the offences charged prescribe punishment of imprisonment or fine or both. However, while extending the benefit of leniency to the accused, the loss of human life cannot be overlooked. Undoubtedly, no amount of monetary compensation can truly - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8160 CRL.RP No. 100167 of 2020 compensate for the loss of life. Nevertheless, if the sentence of imprisonment is modified to a penalty of fine, and the said amount is directed to be paid to the family of the deceased as compensation, it would, to some extent, mitigate the hardship caused to them. 12. In the light of the above, the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. ii. The order of the trial Court in C.C. No. 1018/2014 dated 16.07.2016 and further confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A. No.5025/2016 dated 18.03.2020 is hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction. iii. The sentence imposed to undergo imprisonment is modified by substituting with fine amount of ₹1,00,000/-. iv. Eight weeks time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court from the date of receipt of copy of this order. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8160 CRL.RP No. 100167 of 2020 v. The trial Court shall disburse the fine amount electronically in favour of legal heirs of the deceased Subray Gajanan Hegde after due identification. vi. In default in payment of fine amount, accused- petitioner shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 year. vii. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Registry to return the trial Court records along with copy of this order. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE CLK CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25