- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8413 CRL.RP No. 100200 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.100200 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: NIGAPPA @ NINGAPPA HANUMANTAPPA TALVAR, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. CHABBI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-581207. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY MUNDGOD POLICE STATION MUNDGOD, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. …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 JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 31.10.2015 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS MUNDGOD IN CC NO.284/2014 SENTENCING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 YEAR AND PAY FINE OF RS.1,000/- IN DEFAULT HE SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR PERIOD OF 2 MONTHS AS HE HAS COMMITTED THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 AND 304 (A) IPC AND WHICH IS PARTLY CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2020 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5007/2015 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN PART REDUCING THE SENTENCE FOR SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 8 MONTHS FOR HAVING COMMITTED THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 AND 304(A) OF IPC., BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION AND ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER THROUGHOUT 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:8413 CRL.RP No. 100200 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 S.V. Yaji, 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-petitioner herein, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in C.C. No.284/2014 dated 31.10.2015, passed by the Court of JMFC, Mundgod (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), and the order in Criminal Appeal No.5007/2015 dated 12.10.2020, passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, U.K. Karwar, sitting at Sirsi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate Court’). 3. The prosecution case against the accused is that on 13.05.2014, at approximately 2:00 p.m., the accused, while driving his mini goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-25/C- 4078, in a rash and negligent manner, collided with a motorcycle proceeding in the opposite direction bearing registration No.KA-31/4781. As a result of the collision, both - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8413 CRL.RP No. 100200 of 2020 the rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle sustained severe injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses, marked as PW.1 to PW.9, and produced 9 documents, marked as Exs.P1 to P9. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). The trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC. 6. Aggrieved by the order of conviction, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.5007/2015. The appellate Court, upon consideration of the evidence and findings recorded by the trial Court, allowed the appeal in part by reducing the sentence of imprisonment from one year to eight months, while confirming the fine imposed by the trial Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8413 CRL.RP No. 100200 of 2020 7. Sri S.V. Yaji, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased rider of the motorcycle. It is further submitted that the place of the accident was a curved road, and the accused exercised necessary care to avoid the collision. Learned counsel contends that the accused was neither rash nor negligent while driving his vehicle. It is submitted that the prosecution’s evidence fails to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 8. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the evidence of PW.1, the complainant, clearly establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court, based on the evidence on record, have recorded concurrent findings and convicted the accused. It is submitted that no material evidence has been pointed to demonstrate any error or perversity in the orders passed by both Courts. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8413 CRL.RP No. 100200 of 2020 10. The occurrence of the accident on 13.05.2014 involving the mini goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA- 25/C-4078, driven by the accused, and the motorcycle of the deceased bearing registration No. KA-31/4781 is not in dispute. Similarly, the cause of death of the rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle, resulting from injuries sustained in the said accident, is also undisputed. The evidence of PW.1 establishes that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Further, Ex.P2, the spot sketch, clearly indicates that had the accused exercised due caution and refrained from rash and negligent driving, the accident could have been avoided. This substantiates the negligence on the part of the accused. 11. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly concluded to convict the accused for the charged offences. The orders of both Courts are supported by cogent reasons and evidence. No grounds are made out for interference by this Court with regard to the conviction. Accordingly, the order of conviction is confirmed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8413 CRL.RP No. 100200 of 2020 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence of imprisonment may be modified to one imposing only payment of fine. It is further submitted that the accused-petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family and the sole caregiver of his aged and ailing mother. The petitioner also has a wife and two minor school-going children to support. Learned counsel contends that sentencing the accused to imprisonment would cause serious hardship to his ailing mother, wife, two minor children and dependent family members. In light of the year in which the accident occurred and the dependency of the family members, it is prayed that this Court modify the sentence of imprisonment to one of fine. 13. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner merits consideration. This Court is of the view that if the sentence of imprisonment is modified to payment of a fine, and such fine is directed to be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased, it may, to some extent, mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the deceased. Such modification of sentence also avoid possible undue hardship to the family of accused. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this Court is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8413 CRL.RP No. 100200 of 2020 inclined to modify the sentence of imprisonment to payment of fine. 14. 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.284/2014 dated 31.10.2015 passed by the Court of JMFC, Mundgod and order in Criminal Appeal No.5007/2015 dated 12.10.2020 passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, U.K. Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, is hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction. (iii) The order of sentence of imprisonment is modified with payment of fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. 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 of Rs.50,000/- each in favour of the legal - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8413 CRL.RP No. 100200 of 2020 representatives of the deceased persons namely; (1) Shirkant Manjunath Moggur (2) Annappa Mahadevappa Dokkur, 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.: 32