- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8412 CRL.RP No. 100107 of 2020 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.100107 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. DURGESHA @ DURUGAPPA S/O. HULAGAPPA AKKIROTTI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF CAR BEARING REG. NO.KA-48/M-4289, R/O: 27TH WARD, HIREJANTHAKAL, GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583227. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR, GANGAVATHI TOWN POLICE STATION, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583227. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 21.01.2020 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.42/2016 BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL (SITTING AT GANGAVATHI) AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 04.11.2016 PASSED IN C.C.NO.34/2016 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GANGAVATHI WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304(A), 279 OF IPC R/W SECTION 187 OF M.V. ACT AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED AND ETC.,. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8412 CRL.RP No. 100107 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri V. Shivaraj Hiremath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State. 2. This criminal revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence in C.C. No.34/2016 dated 04.11.2016, passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), as well as the order in Criminal Appeal No.42/2016 dated 21.01.2020, passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, sitting at Gangavathi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate Court’). 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.10.2015, at about 7:00 p.m., the accused, due to his rash and negligent driving of his Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KA-48/M- 4289, dashed against a baby girl aged three years, causing grievous injuries, to which she subsequently succumbed. It is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8412 CRL.RP No. 100107 of 2020 alleged that the accident occurred as a result of the accused’s rash and negligent driving. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses, PW.1 to PW.10, and produced 17 documents, Exs.P1 to P17. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, including the testimony of PWs.1 and 3, examined as eyewitnesses as well as the evidence of PW.6 and PW.10, the investigating officers and PW.7, the medical officer, held that the baby girl died due to severe injuries sustained in the accident, which occurred as a result of the accused’s rash and negligent driving. Consequently, the trial Court convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), and for an offence punishable under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. The trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC; sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8412 CRL.RP No. 100107 of 2020 offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC; and directed payment of a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 187 of the MV Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of conviction, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.42/2016. The appellate Court, upon consideration of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the order of conviction. 7. Sri V. Shivaraj Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that although the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 3 as eyewitnesses to establish rashness and negligence on the part of the accused, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the accused was neither rash nor negligent at the time of the accident. It is contended that, at best, the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 may prove the occurrence of the accident but does not establish rashness or negligence. It is further submitted that the mere occurrence of an accident does not suffice to constitute the offences charged. The overall appreciation of the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 6, 7 and 10, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8412 CRL.RP No. 100107 of 2020 demonstrates that the prosecution has failed to prove the commission of the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt. 8. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that a reading of the examination-in-chief and cross- examination of PWs.1, 3, and 5 clearly establishes that the accused committed the offence of rash and negligent driving, resulting in the death of the deceased baby girl. It is further submitted that both the trial Court and the appellate Court, after due consideration of the evidence on record, have recorded concurrent findings of conviction. It is contended that no grounds have been made out warranting interference by this Court. 9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records available, this Court proceeds to examine the matter. 10. The prosecution’s case that on 12.10.2015, the accused, while driving his Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KA-48/M-4289 in a rash and negligent manner, caused an - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8412 CRL.RP No. 100107 of 2020 accident resulting in the death of the deceased baby girl, stands proved by the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 5, 6 and 10. The evidence of PW.7, the medical officer, establishes that the cause of death was the injuries sustained in the accident. Further, PWs.6 and 10, the investigating officers, have given a detailed account of the incident, which corroborates the evidence of PWs.1, 3, and 10. 11. The trial Court, having regard to the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 as eyewitnesses, noted that although minor contradictions exist in their testimonies, the substantive case of the prosecution that the accused was rash and negligent while driving his vehicle stands proved. Similarly, PW.5, though treated as hostile, was subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution, which successfully elicited material information to support its case. 12. The defence extensively cross-examined the aforementioned witnesses; however, no material information was elicited to discredit their testimonies. On the basis of the evidence, the trial Court and the appellate Court rightly held the accused guilty of the offences charged. The orders passed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8412 CRL.RP No. 100107 of 2020 by both Courts are founded on established evidence, which clearly proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 13. This Court has also perused the evidence on record with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. This Court on careful examination is of the opinion that the prosecution has placed sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the findings recorded by both Courts require no interference. Hence, the conviction recorded is hereby confirmed. 14. At this juncture learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family. Considering the year in which the accident occurred and the dependency of his family members, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to modify the sentence of imprisonment to one of fine. 15. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the submission of learned counsel for the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8412 CRL.RP No. 100107 of 2020 petitioner merits consideration. The offences charged prescribe punishment by way of imprisonment or fine, or both. This Court is of the view that modifying the sentence of imprisonment to payment of a fine, with the fine directed to be paid to the parents of the deceased child, though it may not fully compensate for their loss, would to some extent mitigate the hardship caused by the demise of their daughter. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of imprisonment to payment of fine. 16. In view of the foregoing, 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.34/2016 dated 04.11.2016 passed by Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi and order in Criminal Appeal No.42/2016 dated 21.01.2020 passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, sitting at Gangavathi, is hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8412 CRL.RP No. 100107 of 2020 (iii) The order of sentence of imprisonment is modified with payment of fine of Rs.75,000/-. The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of six weeks’ from the date of receipt of this order. (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 parents of deceased baby girl Archana, 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.: 24