- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7858 CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2019 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.100278 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MOHAMMAD AESHAN AMIN SHAIKH, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: 223, 1ST FLOOR, QUBA MASJID ROAD, UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU, DIST: MYSURU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAY M.MALALI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH GARAG POLICE STATION, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 11.10.2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN CRL.A.NO.62/2019 AND ALSO JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.06.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., COURT, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.382/2016, PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 338 AND 304A OF IPC AND 134 R/W 187 OF MV ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FOR THE AFORESAID OFFENCES AND ETC. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7858 CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Vijay M. Malali, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent – State. 2. The accused in C.C. No. 382/2016 has preferred this revision petition challenging the order dated 14.06.2019 passed in the said case, as well as the order dated 11.10.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 62/2019. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.12.2015 at about 5:00 p.m., the accused, while driving his car bearing No. KA-04/MC-1947 in a rash and negligent manner from Dharwad towards Belgaum, near Santosh Hotel on P.B. Road in Belur Industrial Area, lost control of the vehicle and dashed against CW1, who was crossing the road along with her son. Due to the impact, CW1 sustained injuries and her son succumbed to the injuries. 4. Based on the complaint, FIR came to be registered. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7858 CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2019 Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses as PWs-1 to 9 and marked 13 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-13. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded a finding of guilt against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, and 304-A of the IPC, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months, 6 months, and 6 months respectively. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 62/2019. The Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 14.06.2019 passed by the Trial Court. 6. Sri Vijay M. Malali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the accident - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7858 CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2019 occurred due to the negligence of the complainant, who was carrying the deceased Manikanta while crossing the road. It is further submitted that the accused was driving the vehicle with due care and caution, and there was no indication of any pedestrian attempting to cross the road at the relevant time. It is also pointed out that a pedestrian underpass existed at the spot, and in such circumstances, the act of the complainant in crossing the road at an undesignated place clearly indicates contributory negligence on her part. 7. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent – State, submits that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, have concurrently recorded a finding of guilt against the accused. The orders passed by both Courts are well-reasoned and are supported by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Hence, no grounds are made out to interfere with the concurrent findings. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7858 CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2019 8. Having considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for both parties and on perusal of the material on record, the fact that the accident occurred on 27.12.2015 at about 5:00 p.m., involving a car bearing No. KA- 04/MC-1947 driven by the accused, is not in dispute. The death of Manikanta, son of CW1 – the complainant, as a result of the said accident, is also not seriously disputed. The prosecution has examined the mother of the deceased, Manikanta, as PW2. PW2 has given a detailed account of the incident, and though she was subjected to extensive cross-examination, her testimony has remained consistent and unshaken. PW4, who was examined as an eyewitness, has deposed that while they were crossing the road, the accused came at high speed and, without sounding the horn, hit PW2 and her son. Due to the impact and the injuries sustained, Manikanta succumbed to the injuries. PW4 was subjected to cross-examination; however, no material worth discrediting her evidence was elicited. 9. PW3 was examined as a panch witness to Exhibits P1 and P3. As per the testimony of PW2, the vehicle involved in the accident was found at the spot and was identified as the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7858 CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2019 one driven by the accused. PW5, the grandfather of the deceased Manikanta, was examined to corroborate the presence of PW2 and her son at the place of the incident. The official witnesses have provided a detailed account of the investigation conducted in the matter. 10. The Trial Court, relying on the evidence of PW2, the eyewitness PW4, and the panch witnesses PWs 1 and 3, held that the accused was driving the vehicle and that he did so in a rash and negligent manner, thereby causing the death of Manikanta. Exhibit P5 – the postmortem report also establishes that the cause of death was the injuries sustained in the accident. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, on a careful appreciation of the evidence on record, have rightly concluded that the death of Manikanta was the result of the injuries caused in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. The concurrent findings recorded by both Courts are supported by cogent evidence, and no infirmity is found warranting interference. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the alternative, submits that the accused was driving the vehicle - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7858 CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2019 with due caution, and the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the mother of the deceased. It is contended that the petitioner had exercised due care while driving, and the accident was beyond his control. It is further submitted that the incident dates back to the year 2015 and that the accused is the sole breadwinner of the family. Imposition of a sentence of imprisonment, it is urged, would adversely affect his career and cause undue hardship to his family. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the sentence of imprisonment be modified and substituted with a sentence of fine. 12. The offences for which the accused has been convicted prescribe punishment of imprisonment or fine, or both. Considering the age of the accused at the time of the accident, his present age, and the fact that his family members are dependent on his earnings, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view and modify the sentence of imprisonment to one of fine. Such a course would also serve to mitigate, to some extent, the hardship caused to the family of the deceased Manikanta. While the payment of fine to the parents of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7858 CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2019 deceased may not compensate the irreparable loss of life, it would, nonetheless, provide some measure of relief. 13. In the light of the above, the following: ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The order of the trial Court in C.C.No.382/2016 dated 14.06.2019 and further confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.62/2019 dated 11.10.2019, is hereby confirmed to the extent of recording conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304-A of IPC and Section 134 r/w Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. The sentence imposed to undergo imprisonment is modified by substituting with fine amount of ₹1,50,000/-. Four weeks time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court from today. The trial Court shall disburse the fine amount electronically in favour of mother of the deceased Manikanta after due identification. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7858 CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2019 If default in payment of fine amount, accused-petitioner shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months. 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.: 2