- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8389 CRL.RP No. 100280 of 2019 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.100280 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: RAJASHEKHAR S/O. CHANNABASAPPA KUMARI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: YATTINAHALLI, HIREKERUR, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH HIREKERUR P.S., RPTD. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT: DHARWAD-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN CRL.A.NO.45/2018 IN CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 338, 304(A) OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 134 (A) R/W SECTION 187 OF M.V. ACT AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HIREKERUR IN C.C.NO.64/2016 IN CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 338, 304(A) OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 134 (A) R/W SECTION 187 OF M.V. ACT., IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIHG COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8389 CRL.RP No. 100280 of 2019 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) This revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur in C.C. No.64/2016, as well as the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.09.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.45/2018 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur). 2. The accused has been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 134(a) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused, while driving a goods lorry bearing No. MH-25/U-7647, on 08.07.2015, caused the vehicle to capsize due to rash and negligent driving. As a result, one Chandrappa Kalingappa - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8389 CRL.RP No. 100280 of 2019 Mulimani sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same, while the other occupants sustained grievous injuries. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.14 and marked 21 documents as Exhibits P.1 to P.21. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record, held that the accused had committed the charged offences and accordingly imposed a sentence of imprisonment along with fine. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.45/2018. The Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal. 6. Sri Pruthvi K.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the lorry was carrying cement bags. It is contended that the accident occurred due to unmarked road humps. It is further submitted that, as it was raining at the time, the accused applied brakes, resulting in the alleged accident. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8389 CRL.RP No. 100280 of 2019 7. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution merely establishes the occurrence of the accident, but is insufficient to prove that the accused was rash or negligent. In the alternative, learned counsel submits that if the sentence of imprisonment is upheld, it would cause undue hardship to the family members dependent on the petitioner, who is the sole breadwinner. 8. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.10, who were occupants of the lorry. The testimony of these witnesses clearly establishes that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly recorded a finding of guilt against the accused. 9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 08.07.2017 at about 12 noon involving a lorry bearing No. MH-25/U-7647. It is also not in dispute that the accused was driving the said lorry at the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8389 CRL.RP No. 100280 of 2019 time of the accident. The evidence of PW.1 corroborates this fact and establishes that the accused was indeed the driver of the offending lorry. This aspect is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On a perusal of the evidence of PW.1 to PW.10, it is evident that the accident occurred while the accused was driving the lorry. 10. The question that arises for consideration is whether the accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner. The evidence on record clearly establishes that no other vehicle was involved in the accident, and no alternate defence has been put forth by the petitioner. Therefore, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were justified in holding that the accused committed the charge sheeted offences. Accordingly, the finding of conviction is affirmed. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the accident occurred due to rain and poor road conditions. It is further submitted that the petitioner is employed as a driver to earn his livelihood and is the sole earning member of his family. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8389 CRL.RP No. 100280 of 2019 12. Having regard to the year of the accident, the age of the accused at the relevant time, and the dependency of his family members, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence is concerned. Further, if the sentence of imprisonment is modified to that of a 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 due to the loss of the family's breadwinner and assists financially. Hence, the order of sentence of imprisonment deserves to be modified by substituting it with a fine. 13. In light of the above reasons, the following order is passed: ORDER 1) Crl.R.P. is allowed in part. 2) Judgment of conviction passed in C.C.No.64/2016 dated 22.02.2018 is hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction. The sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial Court is modified by payment of fine of Rs.75,000/- within six months from the date of this order. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8389 CRL.RP No. 100280 of 2019 3) In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. 4) The trial Court is directed to release the fine amount in favour of the legal heirs of deceased Chandrappa Kalingappa Mulimani electronically, on due identification. 5) Bail bonds and sureties if any, stands cancelled. 6) Registry is directed to return the trial Court records with copy of this order. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE HMB CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8