- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8421 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100267 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SANGANABASAPPA S/O. SHIVASANGAPPA PALAGALADINNI, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. NAGARAL, TALUK. MUDDEBIHAL, DIST. VIJAYAPURA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVANAND MALASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH NORTH TRAFFIC POLICE, STATION HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. …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 ORDER OF THE SENTENCE AND CONVICTION PASSED BY THE 1ST J.M.F.C. COURT, HUBBALLI IN C.C. NO.3317/2017 BY ITS ORDER DATED 30.11.2018 CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.106/2018 BY ITS ORDER DATED 31.03.2022 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR AN OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 AND 304-A OF IPC R/W SECTION 177 OF IMV ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8421 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2022 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 Shivanand Malashetti, 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–petitioner challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2018 passed in C.C. No.3317/2017 by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hubballi (for short, ‘the trial Court’), and the judgment dated 31.03.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.106/2018 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi (for short, ‘the appellate Court’). 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 27.09.2016 at about 6:00 p.m., the accused, while driving a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-27/F-528 in a rash and negligent manner, collided with a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 25/EC-2444, which was being ridden by the deceased. As a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8421 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2022 result of the collision, the deceased sustained head injuries and subsequently succumbed to the said injuries on the following day. 4. The Investigation officer filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), and under Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses, who were cited and examined as PW.1 to PW.7, and produced and marked 14 documents as Exhibits P1 to P14. 5. The trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence of PW.1-the complainant, PW.2-the panch witness, and PW.3 and PW.4-the eye-witnesses, held that the accused was rash and negligent in driving and caused the accident resulting in grievous injuries and the death of the deceased. Accordingly, the trial Court recorded a finding of conviction and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC, and further sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8421 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2022 to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC. 6. The accused, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, preferred Criminal Appeal No.106/2018. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. 7. Sri Shivanand Malashetti, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the place of the accident was a curved stretch of road and that one side of the road was closed due to ongoing construction work. It is further submitted that the police had diverted two-way traffic onto a single side of the road. Owing to the two-way movement of vehicles on a single lane, the road was heavily congested, making it difficult for vehicles to move. In such a situation, it is contended that rash or negligent driving was not possible. Learned counsel further submits that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased, who failed to exercise due care while traveling in the congested road. It is also submitted that, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8421 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2022 to prove the nature of the accident, the prosecution has relied on Ex.P13-the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, and Ex.P6-the spot mahazar. A combined reading of Exs.P6 and P13, it is submitted, contradicts the prosecution’s case. Learned counsel contends that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 8. On the other hand, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent– State, submits that PW.1-the complainant, has been examined and has provided a complete account of the accident. Though the complaint was registered based on the information provided by him, the defence has failed to elicit any material in cross- examination to discredit his testimony. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that the trial Court, relying on the evidence of the two eye-witnesses-PWs.3 and 4, has rightly recorded the conviction. The presence of these witnesses at the scene of the accident is established, with PW.3 being a traffic police official and PW.4 an independent witness. It is contended that, based on their evidence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is further - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8421 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2022 submitted that the concurrent findings recorded by both the trial Court and the appellate Court are based on established evidence and do not warrant interference by this Court. 9. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 10. The material on record clearly establishes that the involvement of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-27/F- 528 and the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25/EC-2444 in the accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the accused was the driver of the KSRTC bus and the deceased was the rider of the motorcycle. Ex.P12–the post-mortem report confirms that the cause of death was the grievous injuries sustained by the deceased as a result of the accident. Ex.P13-the Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report corroborates the involvement of both vehicles in the accident in question. Although learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Ex.P6-the spot mahazar and Ex.P13-the MV report, are contradictory, the alleged contradictions are not of such material nature as to discredit the case of the prosecution. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8421 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2022 11. On a consideration of the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, who have provided a consistent and complete account of the incident, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Though these witnesses were subjected to cross-examination by the defence, no material contradictions or omissions were elicited to discredit or weaken their testimony. Accordingly, it is to be held that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 12. The trial Court, as well as the appellate Court, upon proper appreciation and re-appreciation of the evidence on record, have rightly held the accused guilty of the offences charged. The findings recorded by both the Courts are based on well-established and cogent evidence. No demonstrable error, illegality, or perversity has been pointed out so as to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by both the Courts is hereby confirmed. 13. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for modification of the sentence of imprisonment to one - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8421 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2022 of fine. The submissions of the learned counsel are fourfold: firstly, the petitioner is the sole caregiver for his 85-year-old ailing mother; secondly, his physically handicapped and unmarried brother is entirely dependent on him; thirdly, his family consists of his wife and two minor school-going children; and fourthly, the petitioner is employed in the KSRTC. Learned counsel submits that, if the petitioner is directed to undergo imprisonment, it would adversely affect his employment, which in turn would jeopardize the livelihood of his entire family. It is further contended that serious prejudice would be caused to the dependent family members if the petitioner is incarcerated. 14. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner merits consideration. The offences charged prescribe punishment with imprisonment, or with fine, or with both. This Court is of the view that, considering the mitigating circumstances placed on record, if the sentence of imprisonment is modified to one of fine and such fine is directed to be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased, it would, to some extent, mitigate the hardship caused to the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8421 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2022 family members of the deceased. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of imprisonment to one of payment of fine. 15. In view of the above discussion and findings, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence in C.C.No.3317/2017 dated 30.11.2018 passed by the I JMFC, Hubballi and order in Criminal Appeal No.106/2018 dated 31.03.2022 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, is hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction. (iii) The order of sentence of imprisonment is modified with payment of fine of Rs.50,000/-. The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of six weeks’ from the date of receipt of this order. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8421 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2022 (iv) In default of payment of fine, the accused- petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. (v) The trial Court shall release the fine amount in favour of the legal representative of the deceased Allauddin s/o. Maabusab Chikkeri, electronically, on due identification. (vi) Bail bonds and sureties, if any, stands cancelled. (vii) The recording of conviction of the accused for the above offences and imposition of fine shall not affect his service conditions. 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.: 38