- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7859 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100038 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: IRAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA GULALKAYI, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. ABALOOR VILLAGE, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581116. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. VINAYA KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE REP. BY CPI, HIREKERUR POLICE STATION, THROUGH ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580114. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVET. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 (1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 24.11.2020 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.90/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT: HAVERI SITTING AT RANEBENNUR AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT AND THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 06.12.2019 IN C.C.NO.237/2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT: HIREKERUR AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 AND 304A OF IPC., IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7859 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2021 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri N.R. Kuppelur, learned counsel appearing along with Sri Vinay Kuppelur, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 2. This revision petition is filed by the accused, challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in C.C. No.237/2018 dated 06.12.2019 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), and the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.90/2019 dated 24.11.2020 by the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate Court'). 3. The case made out by the prosecution against the accused is that, on 08.03.2018 at about 6:45 p.m., the accused, while riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.27/EG-6957 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7859 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2021 one Shivappa, who was walking near his land, as a result of which Shivappa sustained grievous injuries. Though Shivappa was immediately shifted to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. 4. The investigation officer filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses, as PW.1 to PW.12, and marked 16 documents as Exhibits P1 to P16. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC, and further imposed a fine of Rs.750/- for the offence under Section 279 of IPC. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7859 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2021 preferred Criminal Appeal No.90/2019. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. Sri N.R. Kuppelur, learned counsel appearing along with Sri Vinayak Kuppelur, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submits that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution does not establish any rash or negligent act on the part of the accused. It is contended that the conviction is unsupported by the evidence and is contrary to the material available on record. The trial Court has placed undue reliance on the testimony of PWs.2 and 3, who have not deposed with specificity regarding the actual occurrence of the accident. Further, the evidence of PWs.4 and 5, relied upon by the prosecution, does not support the case of the prosecution. Though PWs.6 and 7 were examined as eyewitnesses to the incident, their testimony is not credible as they are interested witnesses. It is further submitted that a mere accident, in the absence of proof of rashness or negligence attributable to the petitioner, would not attract the alleged offences, and the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7859 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2021 prosecution has failed to establish the same beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the prosecution has established its case through the testimony of eyewitnesses as well as circumstantial evidence. The evidence of PWs.6 and 7 clearly demonstrates that the accident and the resultant death occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the accused. The other evidence led by the prosecution also unequivocally proves and establishes the guilt of the accused for having committed the alleged offences. It is further submitted that both the trial Court and the appellate Court recorded concurrent findings of fact, which are duly supported by the material on record. 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 08.03.2018 at 6:45 p.m., involving the accused while riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.27/EG-6957. Exhibit P9 establishes that the cause of death of Shivappa was the grievous injuries sustained - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7859 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2021 in the said accident. Though PWs.4 and 5, who were witnesses to the seizure mahazar marked as Ex.P5, turned hostile, their hostility has not affected the case of the prosecution in view of Exhibits P6 and P7, wherein both witnesses are seen in the photographs taken at the spot. PW.6, an eyewitness to the incident, has given a detailed account of the occurrence. His testimony clearly establishes that he witnessed the accident and also narrated the subsequent steps taken to shift the accused to the hospital. Despite extensive cross-examination by the defence, no material contradictions were elicited to discredit his version. Similarly, the evidence of PWs.7, 8 and 9 also supports the case of the prosecution and demonstrates that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the accused, and that the death of Shivappa was the result of the grievous injuries sustained in the said accident. 9. A perusal of the evidence on record further reveals that the road on which the accident occurred did not have significant vehicular movement, as it primarily leads to agricultural fields. There is no material on record to suggest - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7859 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2021 any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. In that view of the matter, no ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts convicting the accused. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has persuaded this Court to consider modifying the sentence of imprisonment to one of fine. The incident in question pertains to the year 2018. It is submitted that the petitioner is an agriculturist and that the accident occurred beyond his control. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner for his family, with his wife and children being dependent on his earnings. Additionally, it is stated that the petitioner has not been involved in any other criminal offences apart from the present case. 11. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, including the age and occupation of the accused and the fact that his family members are dependent on his earnings, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence imposed by the trial Court. It is pertinent to note that the offences charged are punishable with imprisonment or fine, or with both. Substitution of the sentence - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7859 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2021 of imprisonment with a fine would, to some extent, mitigate the hardship likely to be caused to the family of the accused. Further, if the fine amount is directed to be paid to the family of the deceased, it would to some extent alleviate the hardship caused to them due to the loss of the breadwinner. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment is modified to that of payment of fine. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in-part. ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentenced in C.C.No.237/2018 dated 06.12.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur and further confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.90/2019 dated 24.11.2020 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur), is hereby confirmed to the extent of recording conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7859 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2021 iii. The sentence imposed to undergo imprisonment is modified by substituting with fine amount of Rs.50,000/-. iv. Two months time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court from date of this order. v. The trial Court shall disburse the fine amount electronically in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased Shivappa, after due identification. vi. In default in payment of fine amount, petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court. vii. Bail bonds if any, shall stands cancelled. Registry to return the trial Court records along with copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3