- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7848 CRL.RP No. 100159 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100159 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SADANAND S/O. PRABHAKAR HARMALKAR, AGE ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O: NAGADEVI ROAD, KUMTA, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA – 581 343. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEDGE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY P.S.I. RURAL POLICE STATION, SIRSI, REP. THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH – 580 011, UTTARA KANNADA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SEC.401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE PART OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.07.2020 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI IN CRL.APL.NO.5016/2016 AND JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 28.03.2016 PASSED BY PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SIRSI IN C.C. NO.21/2015, CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FROM OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 AND 304(A) OF INDIAN PENAL CODE 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:7848 CRL.RP No. 100159 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 Vishwanath Hedge, 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-revision petitioner challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C. No.21/2015 dated 28.03.2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Sirsi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), and the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.5016/2016 dated 01.07.2020 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate Court’), whereby the accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short), and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.800/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, a further fine of Rs.400/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7848 CRL.RP No. 100159 of 2020 and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution against the accused is that, on 12.05.2015 at about 11:15 a.m., the accused, while riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-47/Q-2123 with a pillion rider, one Ravish Mulya, in a rash and negligent manner, collided with a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-42/F-1073, which was coming from the opposite direction. As a result of the said rash and negligent riding, both the accused and the pillion rider sustained injuries. Though the pillion rider was shifted to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on 13.05.2015. 4. Charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the IPC. 5. The prosecution examined 07 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.7 and marked 12 documents as Exhibits P1 to P12. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court found - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7848 CRL.RP No. 100159 of 2020 the accused guilty of the charged offences and accordingly imposed sentence of fine and imprisonment. 6. The accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.5016/2016. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciation and re-assessment of the evidence and after considering the findings recorded by the trial Court, allowed the appeal in part. It confirmed the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC, while setting aside the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 337 of the IPC. The appellate Court further modified the sentence of simple imprisonment from 1 year to 8 months. 7. Sri Vishwanath Hedge, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, submits that the case of the prosecution rests primarily on the evidence of PW.1-the driver of the KSRTC bus involved in the accident. It is contended that PW.1, being an interested witness, has deposed against the accused in order to evade his own liability and to absolve himself of any negligence. Hence, his evidence is not reliable for recording a conviction. Learned counsel further submits that there was no act of negligence on the part of the accused and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7848 CRL.RP No. 100159 of 2020 that the accident occurred due to a sudden loss of control over the motorcycle, which was beyond the control of the accused and, therefore, cannot be construed as negligence. In the alternative, learned counsel submits that if the conviction is to be upheld, the sentence of imprisonment may be modified to one of payment of fine. 8. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the prosecution, through the evidence of PW.1 and other witnesses, has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and warrant no interference. With these submissions, the learned Additional Government Advocate prays for dismissal of the revision petition. 9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the records as well as the grounds urged in the revision petition, it is not in dispute that the pillion rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-47/Q-2123 died in the accident that occurred on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7848 CRL.RP No. 100159 of 2020 12.05.2015 involving a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-42/F-1073. The fact that the accused was riding the motorcycle at the time of the incident is also not in dispute. What now falls for consideration is whether the essential ingredients of the offences charged are made out. Insofar as the conviction under Section 337 of the IPC is concerned, the same has been set aside by the appellate Court, and since the State has not preferred an appeal, the scope of this revision petition is confined to examining the conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC. 10. The prosecution examined PWs.1 and 4 as the material witnesses to establish rash and negligent riding by the accused. PW.1 has deposed that, on the date of the accident, he was driving the KSRTC bus from Haveri towards Karwar, and near Mosalegundi Cross, the accused, riding his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, lost control and collided with the bus, resulting in the accident. PW.1 was extensively cross- examined by the defence, but no material contradictions were elicited. His testimony remained consistent and unshaken. Though a suggestion was made during cross-examination that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7848 CRL.RP No. 100159 of 2020 the accident occurred due to the negligence of the bus driver, no convincing evidence was brought on record to substantiate the said suggestion. 11. The trial Court has rightly considered Ex.P11-spot sketch proved through PW.3, the panch witness, which clearly indicates the position of the vehicles at the time of the accident. As per Ex.P11, the KSRTC bus was on the extreme left of the road, and the motorcycle, after collision, was found on the mud, on the extreme left side of the road, indicating that the rider had veered off uncontrollably. It is also relevant to note that the accident occurred on a Ghat section of the road, where heightened caution is expected from drivers and riders. Further, Ex.P6-the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report has been rightly relied upon by the trial Court to conclude that the accused was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. 12. PW.4-the conductor of the KSRTC bus has also provided a detailed account of the incident. During cross- examination, the defence failed to elicit any material contradictions or statements that would discredit her - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7848 CRL.RP No. 100159 of 2020 testimony. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution clearly establishes that the accused was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in the accident. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court have appropriately appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and have rightly concluded that the accused is guilty of the offences charged. No grounds or infirmities have been demonstrated to warrant interference with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 13. The next issue that requires consideration is with respect to the sentence imposed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged this Court to take a lenient view and to modify the sentence of imprisonment to one of payment of fine. It is submitted that, except for the present offence, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is not involved in any other offences. The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not seriously disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate. 14. The accident in question occurred in the year 2015, and the accused was aged about 20 years at the time of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7848 CRL.RP No. 100159 of 2020 incident. It is submitted that the accused is the sole breadwinner of his family, and any sentence of imprisonment would cause undue hardship to the dependent family members. The offences for which the accused has been convicted are punishable with imprisonment, or with fine, or with both. 15. A perusal of Ex.P11 indicates that, although the accused was negligent, the accident was not intentional. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the accused at the time of the incident, this Court is of the opinion that a lenient view can be taken with regard to the sentence. While the loss suffered by the family of the deceased cannot be compensated in monetary terms, if the sentence of imprisonment is modified to one of payment of fine, and the said fine is directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, namely, Ravish Mulya, it would to some extent mitigate the hardship caused to them. Modification of the sentence of imprisonment to payment of fine as a measure of balancing the ends of justice has been recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police [(2021) 17 SCC 799]. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7848 CRL.RP No. 100159 of 2020 16. In view of the foregoing, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused to that of payment of fine. 17. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the following; ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The order of conviction dated 28.03.2016 in CC. No.21/2015 and further confirmation in Crl.A.No.5016/2016 dated 01.07.2020 is confirmed. However, the sentence imposed by the trial Court is modified. The sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court is set aside by substituting the same with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. (iii) The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order before the trial Court. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7848 CRL.RP No. 100159 of 2020 (iv) In default of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. (v) The trial Court shall release the fine amount in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased Ravish Mulya, electronically on due identification. (vi) Bail bonds and sureties, if any, stands cancelled. Registry to return the trial Court records along with a copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20