- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8408 CRL.RP No. 100038 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.100038 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: BHIMAPPA S/O. TIMMANNA BANDIWADDAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARENUR, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAJID AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH BADAMI PS, DIST: BAGALKOT, NOW REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.397 R/W SEC.401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.07.2017 MADE IN C.C.NO.530/2009 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BADAMI AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT/ORDER MODIFIED SENTENCE DATED 31.10.2019 MADE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.55/2017 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 338, 304-A OF IPC AND SECTION 3 R/W 181 AND 146 R/W 196 OF M.V. ACT, BY ALLOWING THE REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE 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:8408 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Sajid Ahmed, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 2. This criminal revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 14.07.2017 passed in C.C. No. 530/2009, and the order dated 31.10.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 55/2017. 3. The prosecution filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, and 304-A of the IPC, and Sections 3 read with 181 and 146 read with 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is alleged that on 23.05.2009, the accused, while riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-24/H-0043 in a rash and negligent manner, collided with another motorcycle bearing registration No. KA- 48/H-4961. It is alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the accused. It is further stated that the rider of the other vehicle sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8408 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2020 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses as PWs.1 to 10 and marked 14 documents as Exhibits P1 to P14. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence of PW1 – the complainant, PWs.3 and 5 – the eyewitnesses, and PW8 – the injured eyewitness who was the pillion rider along with the deceased, held that the accused caused the accident due to his rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the accused for the charged offences and imposed sentence along with fine. 6. The accused, being aggrieved, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 55/2017. The Appellate Court, upon meticulous re- examination of the evidence on record and on consideration of the findings recorded by the Trial Court, partly allowed the appeal and set aside the fine imposed for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC, while confirming the conviction and sentence for the remaining offences. 7. Sri Sajid Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, submits that the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 5, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8408 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2020 and 8, examined by the prosecution as eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, suffers from material contradictions. It is submitted that although all these witnesses have deposed to having witnessed the accident, the evidence on record indicates that the accident occurred at about 7:30 p.m. PWs.1, 3, and 5 were traveling in a tractor, which was at a considerable distance from the place of the accident. In such circumstances, it is difficult and highly improbable that PWs.1, 3, and 5 could have witnessed the accident. It is further submitted that PW8 — the pillion rider who was accompanying the deceased is a related and interested witness, and therefore, his evidence is not reliable. 8. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 5, and 8 clearly establishes that the accused caused the accident due to his rash and negligent act. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that, though the eyewitnesses were extensively cross-examined, nothing material was elicited to discredit their testimony. It is further submitted that both the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8408 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2020 Trial Court and the Appellate Court have recorded concurrent findings based on the evidence on record. 9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties and on perusal of the records, the factum of the accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. KA-48/H-4961 and KA-24/H-0043 is not in dispute. It is established that the deceased was the rider of the vehicle bearing No. KA-48/H-4961, while the accused was riding the vehicle bearing No. KA-24/H-0043. The postmortem report – Ex.P8, establishes that the cause of death of the deceased was the injuries sustained in the said accident. Ex.P9 – the IMV report, confirms that both vehicles were involved in the accident. Ex.P11 – the rough sketch, further indicates that the accused was on the wrong side of the road, i.e., on the extreme right, riding his motorcycle in the opposite direction to that of the deceased. The width of the road is 20 feet, and the accident occurred approximately 6 feet towards the left side of the road, where the deceased was riding his vehicle. This evidence cumulatively demonstrates the rash and negligent riding of the accused. Further, a perusal of the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 5, and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8408 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2020 8 also demonstrates that the prosecution has established the rash and negligent act of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 10. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court, upon due consideration of the evidence on record, have rightly recorded the conviction. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are well-reasoned and supported by the established evidence on record. No cogent or demonstrable ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. Hence, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court is upheld. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, earnestly persuaded this Court to consider modification of the sentence of imprisonment to one of fine. It is submitted that the petitioner is engaged in agricultural activity and is the sole breadwinner of his family, consisting of his wife and children, all of whom are dependent on his earnings. It is further submitted that imposition of a sentence of imprisonment would seriously affect and prejudice the life and future of his wife and children. It is also stated that the petitioner is not involved in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8408 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2020 any other criminal case. This statement is not disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate. 12. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2009 and considering the occupation of the accused, who is engaged in agriculture, there is no doubt that if the accused is directed to undergo imprisonment for the proved offences, it would seriously affect his family. This Court, while bearing in mind the interests of the wife and children of the accused, is of the considered view that the sentence of imprisonment can be modified to one of fine. Furthermore, if the fine amount is directed to be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased, Sri Mudakappa Jalageri, it would, to some extent, mitigate the hardship caused by the loss of a family member. 13. In the light of the above findings, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The order of conviction as recorded in C.C. No.530/2009 dated 14.07.2017 on the file of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8408 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2020 the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Badami and order in Crl.A. No.55/2017 dated 31.10.2019 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, are hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction. However, the sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court is modified to fine of ₹75,000/-. (iii) The fine amount shall be deposited before the Trial Court within six weeks from today. (iv) In default of payment of fine within the time as ordered, the revision petitioner/accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court. (v) The Trial Court shall release the fine amount in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased Mudakappa Jalageri electronically on due identification. (vi) The bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled. Registry to return the trial Court records along with a copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE CLK_CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17