- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7650 CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100229 OF 2016 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: RAHAMATULLAKHAN S/O. HAMEEDKHAN, AGED: 66 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: TEEPUNAGAR, TQ. AND DIST: SHIVAMOGGA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PATIL M.H., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE BY PSI, SHIGGAON POLICE STATION, R/BY SPP, KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 (1) READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.69/2013 DATED 01.07.2015 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, SHIGGAON IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.300/2010 DATED 10.10.2013 BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM AND ETC.,. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL 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:7650 CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2016 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) The present Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.10.2013 passed in C.C. No.300/2010, as well as the judgment dated 01.07.2015 passed by the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.69/2013. 2. The case put forth by the prosecution against the accused is that, on 13.10.2009 at about 2:45 a.m., on P.B. Road near the new bus stand at Shiggaon, the accused, being the driver of a goods lorry bearing registration No. KA-16/A- 8700, drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and collided with a passenger tempo bearing registration No. KA-27/3808, which was stationed at the side of the road for the purpose of replacing a wheel. As a result of the said accident, two persons, namely Tavanappa A. Patil and Chidanandayy Kotrayya Hiremath, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. It is further alleged that the driver of the lorry fled from the scene of the incident. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7650 CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2016 3. The accused was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, who were cited as PW-1 to PW-13, and marked 30 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-30. The Trial Court recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Upon consideration of the evidence on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC; simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC; simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7650 CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2016 Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC; and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused and that the findings recorded by the Trial Court were justified. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 6. Sri M.H. Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, submits that the passenger vehicle was parked on the road without any indication or warning. The accident occurred on a busy road with heavy vehicular movement. It is contended that the accused had exercised due caution while driving the lorry and that the accident took place solely due to the negligence of the driver of the passenger vehicle, who failed to place any indicator or warning sign, particularly considering the time of the incident, which was around 2:45 a.m. Learned counsel further submits that the conviction is primarily based on the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, who have been projected as eyewitnesses to the incident. However, PW-2 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7650 CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2016 and PW-3 are closely related to the deceased and the injured, and their presence at the scene of the incident has not been satisfactorily established. It is contended that the Trial Court committed an error in placing reliance on the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 to record the conviction. It is further submitted that PW-1 did not identify the lorry involved in the accident by its registration number. Moreover, neither the name of the driver nor the identity of the accused was disclosed in the complaint. The vehicle in question was identified only at the Police Station, and it is alleged that the said lorry was planted by the Police in collusion with the family members of the deceased. 7. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State, submits that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, have rightly concluded that the guilt of the accused has been established. It is contended that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Both the Courts have recorded concurrent findings, which do not suffer from any infirmity. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the revision petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7650 CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2016 8. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the accident occurred on 13.10.2009 at about 2:45 a.m. on P.B. Road near the new bus stand at Shiggaon, involving a lorry bearing registration No. KA-16/A-8700 and a passenger tempo bearing registration No. KA-27/3808. The factum of the accident and the involvement of the aforesaid vehicles is not in dispute. It is also established that Sri Tavanappa A. Patil and Chidanandayya Kotrayya Hiremath died on the spot in the said accident. The complaint was lodged by PW-1, who has provided a detailed account of the incident. According to PW-1, while returning to Haveri on 13.10.2009 after attending an engagement ceremony in the passenger vehicle, the rear wheel of the said vehicle got punctured near Shiggaon at about 2:00 a.m. Consequently, the vehicle was stopped at the roadside with the indicator lights switched on, and the wheel was being replaced. PW-1 stated that his brother and his son were engaged in replacing the wheel, while the deceased—Tavanappa and Chidanandayya were standing behind the vehicle. At that time, a lorry came from Hubballi at high speed and hit Tavanappa and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7650 CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2016 Chidanandayya, who were holding a torch to assist with the wheel replacement, resulting in their instantaneous death. It is further stated that Shrikantayya sustained grievous head injuries, and Mahantesh suffered a hand fracture and abdominal injury. PW-1 also deposed that there was sufficient space on the road for the lorry to pass without hitting the stationary vehicle. He further stated that the driver of the lorry did not stop after the accident and fled from the scene. PW-1 identified the accused as the driver of the lorry. He was extensively cross-examined by the defence, but the statements made by him regarding the precautionary measures taken by the driver of the passenger vehicle remained unshaken. 9. Similarly, PW-2 was examined and he deposed regarding the incident in terms consistent with the testimony of PW-1. He reiterated that the tempo was parked on the left side of the road with the indicator lights switched on, and that the lorry, driven at high speed, collided with the stationed passenger vehicle due to the negligent manner in which it was driven. He specifically denied the suggestion that the driver of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7650 CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2016 the passenger vehicle had failed to take necessary precautions while parking the vehicle on the roadside. 10. PW-4 and PW-8 also deposed in consonance with the evidence of PW-1. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. It was further held that the driver of the passenger vehicle had taken the necessary precautions while parking the vehicle on the roadside during midnight hours. The Courts also recorded a categorical finding that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo. 11. Further, a perusal of Ex.P-26, the spot sketch, indicates that the width of the road is 22 feet. The passenger vehicle was parked within 8 feet from the edge of the road. Ex.P-26 also reveals that the road was straight and provided clear visibility of the parked vehicle, with more than 14 feet of road space available for the lorry to pass. When the testimony of PW-1 and other witnesses is read in conjunction with Ex.P- 26, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the accused - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7650 CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2016 was negligent while driving the lorry, which resulted in the collision with the stationed passenger vehicle and caused the death of two persons. 12. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the lorry driver, i.e., the accused. The conviction recorded on the basis of the evidence on record does not warrant any interference by this Court. 13. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has, in the alternative, submitted that the accused is now aged more than 72 years and is suffering from various ailments. It is further submitted that the offences with which the accused is charged are punishable with imprisonment, or with fine, or with both. Learned counsel persuades this Court to impose sentence with only fine. 14. The offence in question pertains to the year 2009. Considering the advanced age of the accused and the long lapse of time since the date of the incident, this Court is of the view that a lenient approach is warranted insofar as the sentence is concerned. The offences charged are punishable - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7650 CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2016 with imprisonment, or with fine, or with both. If the sentence of imprisonment is modified to one of fine, and if such fine is directed to be paid to the family members of the deceased, it would, to some extent, mitigate the hardship caused by the loss of the breadwinner. Furthermore, the age and medical condition of the accused also deserve due consideration while determining the appropriate sentence. 15. Having regard to the overall circumstances and the factual matrix as discussed hereinabove, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of imprisonment to that of fine, payable to the legal heirs of the deceased. 16. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The order of conviction dated 10.10.2013 in C.C. No.300/2010 and further confirmation in Crl.A.No.69/2013 dated 01.07.2015 is confirmed. However, the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is modified. The sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court is set - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7650 CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2016 aside by substituting the same with fine of Rs.2,00,000/-. (iii) The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of eight weeks before the trial Court. (iv) In default of fine, revision petitioner shall undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. (v) Legal representatives of Late Tavanappa Annappa Patil are entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- and the legal representatives of Late Chidanandayya Kotrayya Hiremath are entitled to Rs.1,00,000/-. (vi) The trial Court shall release the fine amount in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased persons viz., Late Tavanappa Annappa Patil and Late Chidanandayya Kotrayya Hiremath electronically on due identification. (vii) Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Registry to return the trial Court records along with a copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE Naa CT: UMD/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5