- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8395 CRL.RP No. 100332 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.100332 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MAHANTESH S/O. SHEKHARAPPA SAJJAN, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: SULEBHAVI, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE-560002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH N.HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, BAGALKOT, REPT. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580001. …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 AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.107/2012, DATED 27.11.2019 AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOT IN CC NO.19/2011, DATED 14.09.2012 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279, 304A OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 187 OF MV ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 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:8395 CRL.RP No. 100332 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Prakash N. Hosamane, 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 challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C. No.19/2011 dated 14.09.2012 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), and the order dated 27.11.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.107/2012 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate Court’). 3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was the driver of a Trailer Double XL lorry bearing registration No.KA-48/3435-3436. It is alleged that, on 02.12.2010 at about 7:45 p.m., while proceeding from Bagalkot APMC towards the Divisional Office Circle, the accused, by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8395 CRL.RP No. 100332 of 2019 motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-29/J-7948, which was approaching from the opposite direction. As a result of the said accident, the rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same at the spot. After investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet for the offences punishable Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and the offence punishable under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.13 and marked 9 documents as Exhibits P1 to P9. 5. The trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record and the testimonies of the eye-witnesses, namely PWs.5, 8 and 13, held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC and the offence punishable under Section 187 of the MV Act. 6. The trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8395 CRL.RP No. 100332 of 2019 of the IPC; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC; and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days and to pay a fine of R.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 187 of the MV Act. 7. The accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.107/2012. The appellate Court, upon meticulous re-appreciation of the evidence on record, while partly allowing the appeal, set aside the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC, and confirmed the remaining part of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 8. Sri Prakash N. Hosamane, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in the case and that the accused was not the driver of the offending vehicle. It is contended that the owner of the vehicle has not been examined to establish that the accused was, in fact, the driver on the date of the incident. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence adduced by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8395 CRL.RP No. 100332 of 2019 the prosecution is insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 8.1 In the alternative, learned counsel submits that the sentence of imprisonment may be modified to one of fine, having regard to the age of the accused, the date of the accident, and the fact that the petitioner is now employed as a driver in the KSRTC department. 9. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that the prosecution has established the case against the accused for the charged offences through the evidence of three eye-witnesses, namely PWs.5, 8, and 13. It is contended that the panch witnesses, PWs.3 and 4, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution is of no consequence, as their evidence is not material to the prosecution’s case. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that both the trial Court and the appellate Court have recorded concurrent findings based on the evidence adduced on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8395 CRL.RP No. 100332 of 2019 10. 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 which occurred on 02.12.2010 involving the lorry bearing registration No.KA-48/3435-3436 did take place. Further, Exhibit P9 establishes that the death of the motorcycle rider was due to the grievous injuries sustained in the said accident. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the accused has been falsely implicated, the evidence on record indicates that such a defence was not taken during the course of the trial. At this stage, it is not permissible to improve or set up a new defence on behalf of the accused. 11. The evidence of PWs.5, 8 and 13 clearly establishes that the accused was the driver of the offending lorry and that he was rash and negligent in his driving, which resulted in the accident causing the death of the motorcycle rider. Though the defence has extensively cross-examined PWs.5, 8 and 13, no material inconsistencies or omissions have been elicited to discredit their testimony. In that view of the matter, it is evident that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8395 CRL.RP No. 100332 of 2019 11.1 Both the trial Court and the appellate Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, have rightly concluded and recorded the conviction of the accused for the charged offences. Hence, no ground is made out for interference, insofar as the conviction is concerned. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the accident, the accused has been selected for appointment as a driver in the KSRTC department, and that the conviction, if upheld, would adversely affect his employment. Learned counsel further submits that, having regard to the date of the accident, the age of the accused and his present circumstances, submits to modify the sentence of imprisonment to one of fine. 13. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner merits consideration. If the petitioner is ordered to undergo imprisonment, it would not only affect his family, the petitioner would be removed from service. This Court is of the view that if the sentence of imprisonment is modified to one of fine, and the said fine is directed to be paid to the legal heirs of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8395 CRL.RP No. 100332 of 2019 the deceased, it would, to some extent, mitigate the hardship caused to the family due to the loss of the deceased. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, 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.19/2011 dated 14.09.2012 passed by Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot and order in Criminal Appeal No.107/2012 dated 27.11.2019 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, 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. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8395 CRL.RP No. 100332 of 2019 (v) The trial Court shall release the fine amount in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased, electronically, on due identification. (vi) Bail bonds and sureties, if any, stand cancelled. (vii) The conviction and imposition of fine shall not affect the service conditions of the petitioner. 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