- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39146 CRL.RP No. 213 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 213 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI. KISHORE MAYYA S/O CHANDRASHEKAR MAYYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT KRISHNA KRIPA UCHILA POST UDUPI DISTRICT-574117 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEENA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA NORTH TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, MANGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 05.06.2017 MADE IN C.C.NO.3177/2016 BY THE COURT OF J.M.F.C., (II COURT) AT MANGALURU AND THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2018 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.109/2017 BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL AND SESSION JUDGE, D.K.MANGALURU AND ETC. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39146 CRL.RP No. 213 of 2018 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the concurrent finding in the proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 2. The accused is convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for 15 days is also imposed. 3. For the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, simple imprisonment for one year is imposed, in addition to fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for three months is imposed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39146 CRL.RP No. 213 of 2018 4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused filed an appeal before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present criminal revision petition is filed before this Court. 5. The facts narrated in the complaint and charge- sheet can be summarised as under: On 28.03.2016 around 4.00 p.m., on National Highway-66 near Baikampady junction, accused drove the car bearing Reg. No.KA-20-P-1394 towards Udupi in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and dashed against the pedestrian – Hari N. Moolya who died in the accident. The police after the investigation filed the charge- sheet. The accused did not plead guilty. 6. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the defence alleged and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39146 CRL.RP No. 213 of 2018 convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid. The Appellate Court also confirmed the finding of the Trial Court. 7. To substantiate the contention, the prosecution has examined six witnesses and produced 13 documents. PW.1 and PW.2 are said to be the eye-witnesses. PW.1 is the complainant. On perusal of the evidence on record, it discloses that the accident is not in dispute. 8. The dispute is relating to the allegation of negligence against the petitioner. Depicting the spot of the alleged accident, a sketch is drawn in presence of the panchas and the panchas have been examined to prove the sketch. 9. The sketch would indicate that the vehicle was moving towards Udupi and it is noticed that the accident has taken place on the edge of the National Highway and accident has occurred near the bus stop. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39146 CRL.RP No. 213 of 2018 10. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was waiting for the bus near the bus stop and the Santro car driven by the petitioner dashed against the victim. 11. The accident spot is marked in the sketch at Ex.P4. From the evidence led to prove the sketch, it can be concluded that the sketch is proved and no materials are available to interfere with the finding relating to the proof of the sketch at Exhibit-P4. 12. Evidence on record would reveal that the petitioner was driving the Car towards Udupi. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to the sketch at Exhibit-P4 would urge that near the place of alleged accident, there is no road divider separating four lane highway between Mangalore and Udupi. It is urged that the victim tried to cross the road where there was no road divider and all of a sudden came on the middle of the road and the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of the victim. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39146 CRL.RP No. 213 of 2018 14. Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the sketch at Exhibit P4 would reveal that accident took place on the left side edge of the Mangalore - Udupi road and the eye witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Learned High Court Government Pleader would also urge that the defence that the victim took right to cross the road is not established. 15. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 16. The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have supported the case of the prosecution. Two among them are eye witnesses. On considering the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the view taken by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court that the accident has been taken place on the left side edge of the road when the victim was waiting for the bus near bus stop and the accused drove the vehicle and dashed against the victim, is based on evidence. No other inference can be drawn in from the cross-examination of the witnesses. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39146 CRL.RP No. 213 of 2018 17. This being the position, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code. 18. The contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim tried to cross the road all of a sudden is not established though the sketch at Exhibit-P4 would indicate that the road divider is not in place near the place of accident. Merely because road divider is not present near the place of the accident, one cannot jump to the conclusion that the victim tried to cross the road. There are no materials to accept the said defence. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the alternative also urged that sentence of one year imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and sentence of three months' imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC are disproportionate and not justified. It is also urged that the accused has not committed any offence earlier. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39146 CRL.RP No. 213 of 2018 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that for the unfortunate accident which has taken place, victim's family has received fair compensation from the Motor Vehicles Tribunal. Taking this aspect into consideration, it is urged to substitute the imprisonment with a reasonable fine. 21. This Court has secured the presence of Punith Kumar – CW7, the son of the victim. The learned High Court Government Pleader has identified CW7, who is present before the Court as per the direction issued by the Court. CW7 who is present before the Court has also produced the copy of his Aadhaar Card and Court has taken on record the photocopy of the same and the signature of CW7 is also taken in the order sheet. 22. The son of the victim would submit that the family has received around Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation from the Tribunal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39146 CRL.RP No. 213 of 2018 23. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not committed any of the offences earlier. 24. This Court is of the view that considering the facts and circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment can be set aside by imposing a fine and substantial part of the fine can be released as compensation in favour of the wife of the victim. 25. Considering the fact that the petitioner is said to be carrying out a small business in a small town, this Court is of the view that fine of Rs.2,25,000/- is to be imposed against the petitioner and the said amount is ordered to be paid to the wife of the victim Smt. Jayanthi, resident of Kattipalla. 26. The petitioner shall deposit the fine of Rs.2,25,000/- within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order failing which, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39146 CRL.RP No. 213 of 2018 27. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed in part. 28. The Trial Court shall issue notice to the wife of the deceased, Smt. Jayanthi, to enable her to receive the fine of Rs.2,25,000/- on deposit of such fine amount by the petitioner/accused. 29. On such deposit, the amount shall be released in favour of Smt. Jayanthi, resident of Kattipalla, the wife of the victim. SD/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE SN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29