- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8345 CRL.RP No. 100175 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100175 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: HONNAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA TALAGERI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK, R/O: JOYISARAHARALAHALLI VILLAGE, RANEBENNUR-581115, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH RURAL P.S. RANEBENNUR, RPTD. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT: DHARWAD-590001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN CRL. APPEAL NO.18/2018 IN CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279, 304(A) OF IPC AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RANEBENNUR IN C.C.NO.532/2017 IN CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 304(A) OF IPC AND ETC. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8345 CRL.RP No. 100175 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER 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 judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C. No. 532/2017 dated 11.01.2018 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur, and the order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 18/2018 dated 11.08.2020 by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri sitting at Ranebennur. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.11.2016, accused No.1, while riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-27/X-0480 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased Halanagouda Basanagouda Patil. As a result of the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed thereto. The charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 146 read with 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8345 CRL.RP No. 100175 of 2020 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-10 and marked Exhibits P-1 to P-17. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Court appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court held that accused No.1 was guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the Trial Court sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 304A IPC and imposed a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC. 4. Accused No.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 18/2018. The Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the Trial Court, dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 5. Sri Pruthvi K.S., learned counsel for the revision petitioner, submits that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased and that the revision petitioner did not contribute in any manner to the alleged accident. It is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8345 CRL.RP No. 100175 of 2020 further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the offences beyond reasonable doubt, and that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are unsupported by cogent and admissible evidence. 6. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State, submits that the prosecution has established its case by examining PW-4, who is an eyewitness to the incident. It is contended that PW-4 has given a clear and complete account of the occurrence, thereby proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have recorded concurrent findings of fact, and no material contradictions have been pointed out before this Court to warrant interference. 7. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties and perused the record. 8. The evidence on record establishes that the alleged accident occurred on 01.11.2016 involving accused No.1. The death of Halanagouda Basanagouda Patil, as a result of grievous injuries sustained in the said accident, is not in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8345 CRL.RP No. 100175 of 2020 dispute. The Trial Court, upon considering the evidence of PW-1 and the complainant, supported by Ex.P-3, has rightly accepted the prosecution’s case. The evidence of PW-4, an eyewitness to the incident, has been rightly relied upon by the Trial Court to conclude that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by accused No.1. Though PW-6, the pillion rider on the motorcycle of accused No.1, did not support the prosecution's case in full, he has admitted the occurrence of the accident. The evidence of PW-7, the doctor, confirms that the injuries sustained in the accident were the cause of death. Furthermore, the evidence of PW-8, the IMV Inspector, also corroborates that the motorcycle ridden by the accused was involved in the accident. 9. The Trial Court further held that although PW-4, the eyewitness, was extensively cross-examined by the defence, no material contradictions or omissions were elicited to discredit his testimony. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion that accused No.1 has committed the offences as charged. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence and the findings - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8345 CRL.RP No. 100175 of 2020 recorded by the Trial Court, has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. 10. This Court has also meticulously perused the evidence on record and the findings recorded by both the Courts. On a careful examination of the evidence, it is evident that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, establishing that the accused has committed the offences as charged. The judgments rendered by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are well-reasoned and based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. No ground is made out to warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is upheld. 11. However, at this juncture, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the accident occurred in the year 2016, and the accused, who was 30 years old at the time, is a daily wage labourer. It is submitted that the accused has a family consisting of a wife and children who are dependent on his earnings, and that sentencing him to imprisonment would cause severe hardship to the family. It is further submitted that the accident was not intentional, and that the accused is not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8345 CRL.RP No. 100175 of 2020 involved in any other criminal case. The aforesaid submissions are not seriously disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate. 12. Having regard to the year of the accident, the nature of the occupation of the accused, and the potential hardship likely to be caused to the family members who are dependent on his earnings, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of imprisonment to that of fine. 13. 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.532/2017 dated 11.01.2018 and confirmation of the same by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.18/2018 dated 11.08.2020 is affirmed to the extent of conviction. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8345 CRL.RP No. 100175 of 2020 (iii) The sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court is modified to payment of fine of Rs.50,000/-. (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., Halanagouda Basanagouda Patil, through electronically after due identification. (vi) The bail bonds and sureties 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.: 5