- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7892 CRL.RP No. 100109 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.100109 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MAHAMMADSALIM, S/O. ABDULAHAMMAD HULAGUR, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. KAMALABANGADI STREET, TQ. SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI P.N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SAVANUR POLICE, HAVERI, REPT. BY SPP, HIGH COURT DHARWAD-581110. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI DATED 26.02.2021 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.45/2020 AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SAVANUR IN CC NO.93/2015 DATED 29.08.2020 FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 304A OF IPC AND SECTION 134 R/W 187 OF M.V. ACT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE AS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 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:7892 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri P.N. Hosamane, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent/State. 2. The present revision petition is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 29.08.2020 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Savanur in C.C. No.93/2015, and the judgment dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in Criminal Appeal No.45/2020. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.04.2014, the accused, being the driver of a Force goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-27/A-4287, drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life. While proceeding from Bijapur Circle towards Ganesha Temple, the accused has driven the vehicle in the wrong direction and dashed against one Darshan. It is the further case of the prosecution that, during the said incident, the vehicle driven by the accused ran over the head of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7892 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2021 deceased, resulting in his instantaneous death. Thereafter, the accident was reported to the jurisdictional police station, pursuant to which a FIR came to be registered. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. Thereafter, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses, who were cited as P.Ws.1 to 8, and marked 14 documents as Exhibits P1 to P14. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Trial Court. 5. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279 and Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence punishable - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7892 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2021 under Section 279 of IPC; simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and a fine of ₹5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC; and simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months and a fine of ₹500/- for the offence punishable under Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.45/2020 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri. The Appellate Court, on re- appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, confirmed the conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and for the offence under Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act was set aside, while the sentence of fine imposed by the Trial Court was confirmed. 7. Sri P.N. Hosamane, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the evidence adduced by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7892 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2021 prosecution is insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that, having regard to the location of the incident and the nature of vehicular movement on the said road, the possibility of negligence on the part of the accused appears improbable. It is further submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased boy. Learned counsel also submits that the investigation conducted by the police is incomplete, as they failed to collect crucial evidence, including the seizure of the bicycle allegedly involved in the incident. 8. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the prosecution has established its case through the evidence of eyewitness PW-3, who has provided a detailed account of the incident. The learned AGA further submits that the findings recorded by both the trial Court and the appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. It is contended that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts do not warrant any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. With these submissions, the learned AGA prays for dismissal of the revision petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7892 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2021 9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, it is evident that the accused was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 16.04.2014 while driving his vehicle bearing registration No. KA-27/A-4287, which resulted in grievous injuries to one Darshan, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, 8 witnesses were examined. The Trial Court has primarily relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 7. PW-1 is the complainant, whose statement is marked as Ex.P1. He has provided a detailed account of the incident and has categorically stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Though the prosecution suggested that the deceased, Darshan, fell under the rear wheel of the vehicle due to skidding while applying brakes, the said suggestion was denied. The extensive cross-examination of PW-1 did not yield any material contradictions, and his testimony has remained consistent and unshaken. 10. PW-2 is a panch witness to the mahazar marked as Ex.P2 and has supported the case of the prosecution. PW-3 is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7892 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2021 an eyewitness to the incident. According to his testimony, the deceased Darshan was standing with his bicycle in front of the house of one Mahendrakar when the accused, driving a TATA ACE vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, came and hit the bicycle. It is stated that Darshan sustained a head injury and died at the spot. PW-3 was subjected to cross-examination, but no material contradictions were elicited to discredit his testimony. 11. Similarly, PW-4 is also an eyewitness, and a combined reading of the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 reveals that the testimony of PW-4 corroborates the version of PW-3. PW-5, a panch witness, deposed in support of the prosecution and proved Exhibits P2 and P3. PW-7, the Investigating Officer, narrated the details of the investigation and the process of collection of material evidence. PW-8, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, deposed that the vehicle in question did not suffer from any mechanical defect at the time of the accident. 12. The Trial Court, upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, arrived at the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offences charged. The Appellate Court, on re- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7892 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2021 appreciation of the entire evidence and the findings recorded by the Trial Court, confirmed the conviction. However, while confirming the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC, the Appellate Court set aside the sentence imposed for the offences under Section 279 of IPC and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, while maintaining the imposition of fine for the said offences. 13. This Court carefully perused the evidence considered by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, the only possible conclusion that emerges is that the accused is guilty of having caused the accident due to his rash and negligent driving, which resulted in the death of the deceased, Darshan. In addition to the findings recorded by the Trial Court, Exhibit P6 — the spot sketch clearly establishes, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the width of the road was 20 feet, and the accident occurred at the extreme edge of the right side, leaving less than six feet of distance. This supports the conclusion that the accused was driving his vehicle on the extreme right side of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7892 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2021 road, i.e., in the opposite direction. The concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts are based on cogent and reliable evidence and do not warrant any interference. The orders passed by the Courts below are supported by well-established evidence. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused stands confirmed. 14. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has persuaded this Court to consider modifying the sentence of imprisonment to that of a fine. It is submitted that, having regard to the year of the incident, the age of the accused at the time of the accident, and the fact that he is the sole breadwinner of the family, with his wife and minor children dependent on him, leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence. The aforesaid submission is duly considered in light of the facts discussed hereinabove. It stands established that the accused was rash and negligent in causing the death of the deceased, Darshan. The offences for which the accused has been convicted are punishable with imprisonment, or fine, or both. Taking into account the year of the accident, the age of the accused at the relevant time, and the potential hardship - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7892 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2021 that may befall his dependents in the event of incarceration, this Court is of the opinion that the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case warrant consideration for modification of the sentence. Further, if a substantial fine is imposed and directed to be paid to the family of the deceased, Darshan, such payment would, to some extent, mitigate the hardship caused to the parents due to the loss of their son. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of imprisonment to one of fine. 15. In the light of the aforesaid findings, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The order of conviction dated 29.08.2020 in C.C. No.93/2015 and further confirmation in Crl.A. No.45/2020 dated 26.02.2021 is upheld. However, the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is modified. The sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court is modified to payment of fine of ₹1,50,000/-. (iii) The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of six weeks before the trial Court. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7892 CRL.RP No. 100109 of 2021 (iv) In default of fine, 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 viz., Darshan electronically after due identification. Registry to return the trial Court records along with a copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE CLK CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16