- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7886 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2020 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.100194 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MAHABUBAKHAN S/O. ABDULRAJAKASAB ADARAGATTI, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. MALENA ONI, SANGUR – 581 148, TQ. DIST. HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE AND SRI M.S. BADIGER, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD, THROUGH HAVERI TOWN POLICE STATION. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 (1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2020 PASSED IN CRL. A. NO.14/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT HAVERI BY CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 304(A)2 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND 134(A)(B) R/W SECTION 187 OF IMV ACT AND BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 23.01.2020 IN CC NO.65/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, HAVERI, AT HAVERI, WHEREIN THE PETITIONER IS CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279 AND 304 (A) OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND UNDER SECTION 134(A)(B) R/W SECTION 187 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AND ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION AND ETC.,. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7886 CRL.RP No. 100194 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 Chetan Munnoli, learned counsel for the revision petitioner-accused and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondent- State. 2. This revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 23.01.2020 passed in C.C. No.65/2016 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haveri, and the judgment dated 05.09.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.14/2020 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused, on 26.02.2016 at about 8.15 p.m., being the driver of an Ape Auto Rickshaw bearing No.KA-27/B-5797, drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7886 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2020 as to endanger the human life, dashed against one Mukund Kulkarni, a Telecom Mechanic by occupation, who was attending to a telecom line issue at 3rd Cross, Vidyanagar, in front of the house of one Banakar. It is the further case of the prosecution that, as a result of the accident, Mukund Kulkarni sustained injuries and was initially shifted to Mallnad Hospital in Haveri and subsequently to Fortis Hospital, Hubballi, for advanced treatment. However, he later succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused-driver neither rendered any medical assistance to the injured Mukund Kulkarni nor reported the incident to the nearest police station. Based on the complaint lodged by one Vijay Malatesh Bennur, FIR came to be registered. The charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134(a) read with Section 134(b) and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7886 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2020 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-8 and marked 17 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-17. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 134(a) read with Section 134(b) and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of ₹700/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC; and to pay a fine of ₹400/- for the offence punishable under Section 134(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7886 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2020 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.14/2020. The appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. 7. Sri Chetan Munnoli, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the witnesses examined by the prosecution are related to the deceased and, therefore, are interested witnesses. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness to establish the guilt of the accused. The counsel contends that the accused was not driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner so as to cause the accident and the resultant death. Additionally, it is submitted that the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-4 relied upon by the trial Court contains material - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7886 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2020 contradictions, thereby raising a reasonable doubt as to the commission of the offence by the accused. 8. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State submits that the prosecution has successfully proved its case, particularly relying on the evidence of PW-1, who is an eyewitness as well as an injured party in the said accident. The findings recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court are duly supported by the evidence on record. The testimony of all witnesses collectively establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that the concurrent findings of both Courts ought not to be interfered with, as no substantial error has been demonstrated. 9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is undisputed that the accident occurred on 26.02.2016 involving the APE auto rickshaw bearing No. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7886 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2020 KA-27/B-5797, which was driven by the accused, resulting in collision with the deceased, who suffered injuries leading to death. The prosecution has examined 8 witnesses in support of its case. To examine the correctness of the impugned orders, it is pertinent to discuss the testimony of certain material witnesses. PW-1, who filed the complaint, has provided a detailed account of the incident. 10. PW-2 and PW-4 are eyewitnesses to the incident. PW-2 who is an eyewitness was present during the inquest mahazar. PW-2 has provided a detailed account of the alleged incident. Although the prosecution has treated him as partially hostile, his overall evidence tends to establish the guilt of the accused. PW-4 was attending to a telecom line problem alongside the deceased at the time when the accused dashed into the deceased, resulting in injuries to both PW-4 and the deceased. PW-5, the IMV Inspector who issued Ex.P-9, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7886 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2020 deposed to prove that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident. 11. The trial Court, upon careful consideration of the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the accused is guilty of the charged offences. It was further held that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the accused, and that the death of the deceased resulted from the injuries sustained in the said accident. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the appellate Court also upheld the conviction, holding the accused guilty of the charged offences. 12. This Court has also perused the evidence on record as well as the findings recorded by both the Courts. Upon such examination, it is found that the orders of both Courts are supported by cogent reasons and are in consonance with the evidence on record. The orders do not suffer from any infirmity or perversity, nor can the findings be said to be contrary to the evidence. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7886 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2020 the impugned orders. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the Courts below is hereby confirmed. 13. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, however, urged this Court to adopt a lenient approach and modify the sentence of imprisonment to a fine, having regard to the year in which the accident occurred, the age of the accused, and the dependency of his family members on his earnings. 14. The accident occurred in the year 2016, and the accused was aged 39 years at the time. The offences charged prescribe punishment by way of imprisonment, fine, or both. In the present case, considering the year of the accident and the likely hardship that may befall the family of the accused if imprisonment is imposed, the interests of justice warrant consideration of substituting the sentence of imprisonment with a fine. Furthermore, if the sentence of imprisonment is so modified and the fine is directed to be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased, the amount would provide some measure of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7886 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2020 relief and mitigate the hardship suffered by the family due to the loss of their earning member. This Court is inclined to modify the sentence of imprisonment to a fine. 15. In view of the aforesaid findings, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The conviction recorded by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC and offence punishable under Section 134(a) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in C.C.No.65/2016 dated 23.01.2020 and confirmation of the same in Criminal Appeal No.14/2020 is affirmed. (iii) The sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court is modified to payment of fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. (iv) The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner/accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trail Court. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7886 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2020 (v) The trial Court shall pay the fine amount deposited by the revision petitioner in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased viz., Mukund Kulkarni, through electronically after due identification. (vi) The bail bonds stand cancelled. Registry to return the TCR forthwith along with a copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE Naa List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10