Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 60174 (KAR)

T. KUMAR S/O TIMMAIAH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.RP/100194/2019 · 2025-07-10

K V Aravind

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100194 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: T. KUMAR S/O. TIMMAIAH, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: DODDABALAPUR, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-561205. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.V. MOGALI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, CPI HALIYAL CIRCLE, HALIYAL, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, 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 SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI (ITINERY AT YALLAPUR) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.180/2013, DATED 05.07.2019 IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.432/2009 DATED 05.12.2010 BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HALYAL, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337 AND 304(A) OF I.P.C. BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIHG COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2019 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri P.V. Mogali, learned counsel for the revision petitioner 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 of sentence dated 05.12.2010 passed by the J.M.F.C., Haliyal in C.C. No.432/2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), and the judgment dated 05.07.2019 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, U.K. Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, in Criminal Appeal No.180/2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate Court'). 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.03.2009 at about 11:00 a.m., the accused, while driving a canter bearing registration No.KA-25/B-2218 from Kalaghatagi towards Haliyal in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-31/K-2814. It is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2019 alleged that, as a result of the accident, the rider and two pillion riders of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. 4. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses, who were examined as PWs.1 to 12, and marked 14 documents as Exhibits P1 to P14. 5. The trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record, particularly the testimony of two eyewitnesses PWs.1 and 4 and the spot sketch marked as Ex.P6, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the IPC. The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2019 6. The accused, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, preferred Criminal Appeal No.180/2013. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, partly allowed the appeal and modified the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC; to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 337 of the IPC; and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC. 7. Sri P.V. Mogali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the motorcycle rider. It is contended that the rider was negligent in carrying two pillion riders, which contributed to the occurrence of the accident. Learned counsel further submits that the accused was compelled to apply sudden brakes when cattle entered the roadway, resulting in the lorry toppling and causing the accident. It is further submitted that the accused was neither rash nor negligent in his manner of driving. Learned counsel also contends that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2019 findings recorded by the trial Court are not supported by cogent evidence and that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 8. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 clearly establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the prosecution has proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Learned AGA further submits that although the defence taken is that the accused applied brakes to avoid cattle crossing the road, no evidence of the presence of cattle was found during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that both the trial Court and the appellate Court, upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, have rightly concluded that the accused committed the offences with which he was charged. 9. Considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2019 10. The occurrence of the accident on 12.03.2009 at about 11:00 a.m., involving a canter bearing registration No.KA-25/B-2218 and a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 31/K-2814, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the accused was the driver of the canter vehicle, and that three persons died due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. The only issue that requires consideration is whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. PW.1, the complainant and an eyewitness, has given a detailed account of the incident. He has stated that the accused was driving the canter in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle, resulting in the death of two persons on the spot and one person en route to the hospital. 10.1 PW.4, a police constable who was travelling in the offending vehicle as it was carrying II PUC question papers, stated that the accident occurred when the accused applied brakes to avoid cattle on the road. However, the evidence of PW.4 also supports the conclusion that the accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner. PW.9, the Investigating Officer, has provided further details regarding the accident. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2019 accused has extensively cross-examined PWs.1, 4, and 9; however, their testimonies have remained consistent and unshaken. The defence has failed to elicit any material to discredit the version of these witnesses. 11. The trial Court, on consideration of the evidence on record, held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the IPC. The appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial Court, rightly confirmed the conviction. 12. This Court has also independently examined the evidence on record, as referred to by the trial Court and the appellate Court. The evidence of PWs.1, 4, and 9, along with the spot sketch marked as Ex.P6, clearly establishes that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. According to Ex.P6, the width of the road is 18 feet, and the accident occurred on the extreme right side, leaving less than 3 feet of space for the two-wheeler to pass the lorry. Ex.P6 further indicates that the offending vehicle toppled after the accused applied sudden brakes. In the circumstances, it is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2019 difficult to accept the defence version that the brakes were applied to avoid cattle on the road. 13. No ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court, insofar as the conviction of the accused is concerned. 14. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the accident, the petitioner has been employed as a driver with the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC), and that if he is ordered to undergo imprisonment, he is likely to lose his employment. It is further submitted that the incident dates back to the year 2009 and that the petitioner has a family comprising his wife and children who are dependent on his earnings. 15. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred more than 16 years ago, and considering the present employment of the petitioner as well as his family circumstances, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of imprisonment to one of fine. Furthermore, if the fine amount is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2019 directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased persons, it would provide some financial assistance to the bereaved families and mitigate, to an extent, the hardship caused by the incident. 16. 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 passed in C.C. No.432/2009 dated 05.12.2010 passed by the J.M.F.C., Haliyal and the order dated 05.07.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.180/2013 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, U.K. Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, is hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction. (iii) The order of sentence of imprisonment is modified with payment of fine of Rs.1,50,000/-. The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of six weeks’ from the date of receipt of this order. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2019 (iv) In default of payment of fine, the accused- petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. (v) The trial Court shall release the fine amount of Rs.50,000/- each in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased persons namely, (1) Smt. Yallavva w/o. Narayana Belgavankar, (2) Suresh Narayana Belgavankar and (3) Ajay s/o. Maleshi Hukregouda @Patil, 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/accused. 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.: 3