- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4279 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200002 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN RAJKUMAR S/O BONNAPPA AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER R/O: DONAGAON, TQ: CHITTAPUR DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 211 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVASHARANA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE THROUGH UNIVERSITY POLICE STATION KALABURAGI, REP. BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH – 585 102 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING THAT THE ORDER DATED:04.10.2019 PASSED BY I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE IN CRL.A.NO.01/2017 AT KALABURGAI BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED:07.12.2016 IN C.C.NO.3489/2010 PASSED BY III ADDL. JMFC AT KALABURAGI, MAY BE SET ASIDE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 27.03.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4279 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2020 BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 07.12.2016 in C.C.No.3489/2010 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Kalaburagi and also against the order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi dated 04.10.2019 in Crl.A.No.1/2017, wherein Courts below concurrently held that the petitioner is found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘IMV Act’). 2. The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court henceforth will be considered accordingly for convenience. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4279 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2020 Factual matrix of the case are as under: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was the driver of the Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. KA-32-MA-1947. The deceased Husnappa was riding a bike bearing registration No.KA-32-Q-8761, which was coming from Rajapur side towards Nandur. When the bike of the deceased reached near 10th Cross, it met with an accident. The Tata Sumo vehicle had been driven in a rash and negligent manner and it was coming towards Kalaburgi and Shahabad road and dashed the said Husnappa, who was riding his bike. Consequently, the said Husnappa died. A complaint came to be registered against the owner of the offending vehicle. A case came to be registered by the respondent - police in Crime No.207/2010 for the aforesaid offences. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P14. The Trial Court after appreciating - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4279 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2020 the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the accused / petitioner was guilty of the offences stated supra. On appeal being filed, the Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings. 5. Heard Sri Shivasharana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have committed a grave error in considering the evidence, which is erroneous and unsustainable under law. 7. It is further submitted that, P.W.3 who is alleged to be the eyewitness to the incident, has stated in his evidence that the deceased was moving on his vehicle to sell plastic ghagars and met with an accident with - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4279 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2020 the Tata Sumo. As it was raining on that day, the fault cannot be assessed. However, the said aspect has not been considered by the Trial Court. Without assessing the fault, the criminal liability ought not to have been fastened against the accused. 8. Though, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses, PWs.4 to 8 are the independent witnesses. They have turned hostile. P.W.7 is the wife of the deceased, has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.8 who is the owner of the vehicle, denied the accident and also denied that the accused was driving the said vehicle as on the date of the accident. P.W.9 who is the Investigating Officer, though supported the case of the prosecution, he is an interested witness to the case, hence, his evidence ought not to have been considered. In spite of all these lacunae, the Trial Court convicted the accused and the Appellate Court confirmed the said conviction, which is improper and unjustifiable. Therefore, the said conviction has to be set aside. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the revision petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4279 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2020 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State vehemently justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction and he further submitted that the prosecution has proved that on 14.08.2010, around about 06.00 a.m., the accident had occurred between two vehicles. P.W.1 being an eyewitness to the incident, has stated in his evidence that the accused was driving Tata Sumo vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter or motorcycle. Though some of the witnesses have turned hostile, their evidence to the extent of supporting the case of the prosecution has to be accepted. 10. It is further submitted that the evidence of the material witnesses are relevant and the Trial Court considered the evidence of those witnesses and recorded the conviction which is appropriate and proper. It is not necessary to interfere with the said findings. Therefore, the revision petition has to be dismissed. Making such submissions, learned High Court - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4279 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2020 Government Pleader prays to dismiss the revision petition. 11. Having heard the counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, it is relevant to have a cursory look upon the evidence of P.W.1 and other witnesses. 12. P.W.1 was working as PSI. He is stated to have registered the FIR on receiving information from C.W.1. Thereafter, it was sent to the Magistrate. 13. P.W.2 was working as a Motor Vehicle Inspector. He is stated to have conducted the inspection of the vehicles of which the accident had occurred. According to him, the accident occurred not because of any mechanical defect. 14. P.W.3 was the friend of the deceased. The deceased and himself used to go to different villages to sell the plastic ghagars on their respective motorcycles. According to him, the accident had occurred due to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4279 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2020 rash and negligent act of the petitioner. He being the complainant had identified the said complaint and got it marked as Ex.P1. He supported the case of the prosecution. 15. Even though the owner of the Tata Sumo, who is examined as P.W.8, not supported the case of the prosecution, the fact remains that, P.W.3 has not only identified the accused, but also knew the petitioner prior to the incident. 16. The entire case is based on the evidence of solitary eyewitness. The evidence of P.W.3 has been corroborated by other material witnesses namely P.W.2 and P.W.9. It is an undisputed fact that the accident had occurred and the deceased died in the said accident. Since the findings of the Trial Court is appropriate, interference with the said findings, in my considered opinion, may not be required. 17. In the meantime, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for leniency to be shown to the petitioner, stating - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4279 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2020 that, he has not committed any similar offences after the accident and he is the earning member of the family. The entire family is depending on him. As such, he sought that leniency be shown by imposing a fine instead of sending the petitioner to judicial custody. 18. Having considered the said submissions, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in- part. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 07.12.2016 in C.C.No.3489/2010 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Kalaburagi and the order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi dated 04.10.2019 in Crl.A.No.1/2017, are modified. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4279 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2020 (iii) The petitioner is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 187 of the IMV Act. (iv) The petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) for the offence under Section 279 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. (v) Similarly, he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) for the offence punishable under section 304A of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. (vi) Further, he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) for the offence punishable under section 187 of IMV Act. (vii) The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount within a period of four weeks from the date - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4279 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2020 of receipt of certified copy of this order and the Registry is directed to send certified copy of this order to the Trial Court forthwith, to comply the order of this court. (viii) In case, if the petitioner fails to deposit the fine amount within the stipulated period, liberty is reserved to the Trial Court to secure the presence of the petitioner in accordance with law, to comply the order of this Court. (ix) The Trial Court is directed to release the amount, which is deposited by the petitioner / accused, to the legal heirs of the victim, on proper identification. (x) Registry is directed to send the records along with the copy of the judgment to the Trial Court for further action. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BSS/ List No.: 19 Sl No.: 5