- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8113 CRL.RP No. 100306 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100306 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: VEERENDRA S/O. PAVADAPPA GOUDAR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER NO.1300, R/O. R/O. MUDDEBIHAL, VIJAYAPURA, NOW AT KASTURBA NAGAR, SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.G. INDI, ADVOCATE AND SRI K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH PSI SIDDAPUR POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, 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 ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 13.11.2019 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.69/2015 BY THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 02.05.2015 IN C.C.NO.29/2014 BY THE JMFC COURT, SIDDAPUR CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279, 304-A OF IPC AND ETC.,. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8113 CRL.RP No. 100306 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri B.G. Indi, learned counsel appearing along with Sri K.L. Patil for the revision petitioner-accused and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 2. This revision petition is filed by the accused, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.05.2015 passed in C.C. No.29/2014 by the Court of the J.M.F.C., Siddapur (for short, ‘the trial Court’), and the judgment dated 13.11.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.69/2015 by the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi (for short, ‘the appellate Court’). 3. The prosecution has made out a case against the accused that on 20.12.2013 at about 10:25 a.m., the accused, by his rash and negligent driving of a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-31/F-1201, collided with a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-31/S-0334, which was proceeding from the opposite direction. It is stated that the bus was en - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8113 CRL.RP No. 100306 of 2019 route from Siddapur to Harsikatta, while the motorcycle was coming from the opposite direction. It is submitted that due to the said accident, the rider of the motorcycle, namely Fayaz, sustained grievous head injuries and died on the spot. Pursuant to investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). 4. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.8 and marked 9 documents as Exhibits P1 to P9. The trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record, held that the accused had committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC. Accordingly, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC. 5. Sri B.G. Indi, learned counsel appearing along with Sri K.L. Patil for the petitioner-accused, submits that the accused was driving the bus cautiously and at a speed within - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8113 CRL.RP No. 100306 of 2019 his control. He further submits that the accident occurred in a Ghat section consisting of multiple curves. It is contended that the width of the road at the place of the incident was only 16 feet, and the accident occurred on a curve where the bus occupied only 12 feet of the road, which corresponds to its width. It is further submitted that there was sufficient space for the motorcycle to pass. Learned counsel also submits that, in addition to the curved road, there was a narrow bridge at the place of occurrence. It is his further submission that the accident was caused, in part, due to the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. 6. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State, submits that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the accused. It is contended that, even assuming the road was a Ghat section as claimed, the accused failed to exercise the degree of caution expected of a driver operating a heavy vehicle in such conditions. It is further submitted that both the trial Court and the appellate Court, upon proper appreciation of the evidence - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8113 CRL.RP No. 100306 of 2019 on record, have rightly concluded that the accused is guilty of the offences charged. 7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 20.12.2013 at about 10:25 a.m., involving a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA- 31/F-1201, driven by the accused, and a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-31/S-0334, ridden by the deceased. The material evidence on record also establishes that the cause of death of the deceased was the injuries sustained in the said accident. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not seriously disputed the fact that the accused was the driver of the bus involved in the accident, nor the resultant death of the deceased. In that view of the matter, this Court does not deem it necessary to re-examine the issue in detail. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court does not warrant interference. 8. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged this Court to reconsider the sentence imposed. It is submitted that the width of the road at the place - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8113 CRL.RP No. 100306 of 2019 of the accident is only 16 feet and that the accident occurred on a curve with a narrow bridge, where the accused had exercised reasonable care while driving. It is further contended that sufficient space was available for the two-wheeler to pass the bus and that the accident occurred partly due to the contributory negligence of the deceased. 9. If Exhibit P3-the spot sketch, is examined in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it reveals that the width of the road is 16 feet and that the accident occurred on a curve and over a narrow bridge. Further, Ex.P5 is the Motor Vehicles Accident Report. A perusal of Ex.P5 would indicate that the bus hit the two-wheeler on the extreme right side of the bus. This circumstance lends credence to the contention that the deceased also contributed to the accident, and such a possibility cannot be ruled out at the outset. This Court finds some force in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has three minor school-going children and is the sole breadwinner of the family. Imposition of a custodial sentence would cause undue hardship to his - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8113 CRL.RP No. 100306 of 2019 dependents. It is also submitted that immediately after the accident, the accused, being the driver of the bus involved in the incident, extended medical assistance to the severely injured deceased Fayaz. This conduct, to some extent, reflects the concern shown by the accused, which deserves due appreciation. 10. The offences charged prescribe punishment of imprisonment or fine, or both. Having regard to the fact that the possibility of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the accident cannot be ruled out, a case is made out for modification of the sentence of imprisonment to that of fine. The learned counsel for the petitioner has voluntarily suggested that a fine of Rs.50,000/- may be imposed. This Court finds the suggestion to be reasonable. In view of the above, the following: ORDER i. The order of conviction in C.C.No.29/2014 dated 02.05.2015 passed by the trial Court and order in Criminal Appeal No.69/2015 dated 13.11.2019 passed by the appellate Court, to the extent of conviction for the offences - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8113 CRL.RP No. 100306 of 2019 punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC is confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court is modified and substituted with payment of fine of Rs.50,000/-. ii. The fine amount shall be deposited before the trial Court within a period of six weeks. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. iii. The trial court shall release the fine amount in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased Fayaz, electronically on proper identification. iv. It is further made clear that the order of conviction recorded, shall not affect the service condition of the accused. v. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand 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.: 12