- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8400 CRL.RP No. 100333 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.100333 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. HUSSAIN SAB S/O. HAMEEDSAB, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: SANAPUR, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.C. JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS (THROUGH GANGAVATHI RURAL P.S.) STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …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 ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL IN CRL. APPEAL NO.5/2013 DATED 28.11.2019 AND THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., GANGAVATHI IN C.C. NO.275/2012 DATED 02.01.2013 AND SET THE PETITIONER AT LIBERTY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8400 CRL.RP No. 100333 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) The instant revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in C.C. No.275/2012 dated 02.01.2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi, and the judgment passed in Crl.A. No.5/2013 dated 28.11.2019 by the District and Sessions Judge,Koppal. 2. The prosecution filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.07.2010 at about 6:00 p.m., the accused, while driving a TATA Magic vehicle bearing registration No. KA-37/8724, collided with a motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-37/R-1720, resulting in grievous injuries to all three persons travelling on the said - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8400 CRL.RP No. 100333 of 2019 motorcycle. It is further stated that one of the riders succumbed to the injuries at the spot. 3. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses as PW- 1 to PW-13 and marked 16 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-16. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the accused had committed the offences charged and accordingly sentenced him to imprisonment and fine. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.5/2013. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. 4. Sri B.C. Jnanayyaswami, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, submits that the rider of the motorcycle, who was carrying two pillion riders, was himself rash and negligent and contributed to the occurrence of the alleged accident. It is submitted that triple riding was the sole cause of the accident and that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8400 CRL.RP No. 100333 of 2019 the same is attributable to the negligence of the motorcycle rider. It is further contended that, as the deceased also contributed to the accident, the evidence on record is insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel further submits that the accident occurred on a busy road that was in poor condition, which circumstance would indicate that the accused could not have driven the vehicle at high speed or in a rash and negligent manner. It is also submitted that one of the prosecution witnesses has deposed in favour of the accused, which supports the defence that the accused was not driving in a rash or negligent manner. 5. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent, submits that the prosecution has examined the two pillion riders, who are eyewitnesses to the incident, and their evidence clearly establishes that the accused was rash and negligent in driving his vehicle. It is contended that the fact that the deceased was riding the motorcycle with two - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8400 CRL.RP No. 100333 of 2019 pillion riders, by itself, is not sufficient to exonerate the accused from the allegation of rash and negligent driving. It is further submitted that both the trial Court and the appellate Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, have concurrently recorded findings of fact holding the accused guilty. It is therefore submitted that no ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 17.07.2010 involving a motorcycle bearing No. KA-37/R-1720 and a TATA Magic vehicle bearing No. KA-27/8724. As per the postmortem report marked as Ex.P-11, the cause of death was the grievous injuries sustained in the said accident. Further, the IMV report marked as Ex.P-14 establishes that the offending vehicle was indeed involved in the accident. It is also undisputed that the accused was driving the TATA Magic - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8400 CRL.RP No. 100333 of 2019 vehicle bearing No. KA-27/8724 at the time of the accident. 7. An examination of the testimonies of PW-1, PW- 5, and PW-10 clearly establishes that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in the accident and the consequent death of the deceased. Although the said witnesses were subjected to cross-examination, nothing substantial was elicited to discredit their version or to disprove the case of the prosecution. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court, upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, have rightly arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offences charged against him. 8. This Court has also independently examined the evidence on record and finds that the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts is based on duly established evidence. No grounds are made out to interfere with the concurrent - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8400 CRL.RP No. 100333 of 2019 findings insofar as the conviction of the accused is concerned. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as a driver and is the sole caretaker of his aged mother, who is suffering from various ailments. It is further submitted that apart from the petitioner, there is no other person to look after his mother. He also submits that the petitioner is the only earning member of the family, which comprises his wife, children, and aged mother. With the above submissions, learned counsel submits to modify the sentence of imprisonment to fine. 10. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred nearly 15 years ago and considering the submission that the petitioner is the sole caretaker of his aged and ailing mother, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence is concerned. Taking into account the peculiar facts of the case and family - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8400 CRL.RP No. 100333 of 2019 circumstances of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence of imprisonment can be modified to one of fine. Further if fine amount is ordered to be paid to the family of the deceased, it would financially assist and reduce hardship caused due to loss of earning member. 11. In the light of the above discussion, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.275/2012 dated 02.01.2013 and confirmation of the same in Crl.A. No.5/2013 dated 28.11.2019 is confirmed to the extent of conviction. (iii) The sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court is modified to payment of fine of Rs.75,000/-. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8400 CRL.RP No. 100333 of 2019 (iv) The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner/accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. (v) The trial Court shall release the fine amount deposited by the revision petitioner in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased viz., Krishna @ Ramakrishna S/o. Srinivas, through electronically after due identification. (vi) The bail bonds stand cancelled. Registry to return the TCR forthwith along with a copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE NAA CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13