- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8669 CRL.RP No. 100045 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100045 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: KOTRAYYA SHANKRAYYA ABBIGERIMATH, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: HULAGI VILLAGE, TQ: AND DIST :KOPPAL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MUNIRABAD POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SEC.401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, BY SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 27.01.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.45/2015, THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 17.11.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOPPAL, IN C.C.NO.418/2011 THEREBY CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 279, 337 AND 304(A) OF IPC AND SENTENCING HIM TO PAY A FINE OF RS.800/- AND 400 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 AND 337 RESPECTIVELY WITH DEFAULT CLAUSE AND DIRECTING TO UNDERGO ONE YEAR R.I. FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304(A) OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIHG COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8669 CRL.RP No. 100045 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent-State. 2. The accused has preferred this criminal revision petition challenging the judgment of conviction and the order on sentence dated 17.11.2015 in C.C. No. 418/2011, as well as the order dated 27.01.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 45/2015. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.02.2011, at approximately 2:00 p.m., the accused, while driving the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-26/790 in a rash and negligent manner, collided with a two-wheeler bearing registration No. KA-37/Q-601 proceeding in the opposite direction, resulting in grievous injuries and the death of the rider of the motorcycle. Consequently, the prosecution filed a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8669 CRL.RP No. 100045 of 2020 charge sheet against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses as PWs 1 to 8 and marked 11 documents as Exhibits P1 to P11. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Court, after considering the evidence of PW1—the complainant; PWs 3 and 4—the eyewitnesses; and PW2—the spot mahazar witness, held that the accused was guilty of the charged offences. 5. Being aggrieved, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 45/2015. The Appellate Court, upon meticulous re- examination of the evidence on record and careful consideration of the findings recorded by the Trial Court, confirmed the order of conviction and sentence.. 6. Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, submits that the evidence of PWs 1, 3, and 4 is not reliable and that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in the case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not a resident of the village where the accident - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8669 CRL.RP No. 100045 of 2020 occurred, and the eyewitnesses are strangers to him. Alternatively, learned counsel contends that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased rider and that the accused was driving the bus with due care. Learned counsel submits that, having regard to the nature of the offences and the contributory negligence of the deceased rider in causing the accident, the sentence imposed is excessive and calls for reduction. 7. On the other hand, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent- State, submits that the prosecution has successfully established its case through the evidence of PWs 1, 3, and 4. The eyewitnesses have positively identified the accused. Although PW5, the owner of the vehicle, did not support the prosecution’s case, the fact that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident remains undisputed. It is further submitted that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, relying on the proven evidence, recorded the conviction. The petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity in the evidence or in the impugned orders. In view of the foregoing submissions, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8669 CRL.RP No. 100045 of 2020 learned Additional Government Advocate prays for the dismissal of the revision petition. 8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties and perused the records. 9. The occurrence of the accident on 21.02.2011 at approximately 2:00 p.m., involving the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-26/790 and the two-wheeler bearing registration No. KA-37/Q-601, is not in dispute. Likewise, the cause of death of the rider of the motorcycle, resulting from injuries sustained in the accident, is also undisputed. The defence of the petitioner is that he has been wrongly implicated. However, upon consideration of the evidence of PWs 1, 3, and 4, the prosecution has satisfactorily established that the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle. 10. The next question that requires consideration is whether the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the accused. The evidence on record, including Exhibit P2 (spot panchanama) and Exhibit P3 (spot sketch), indicates a possible contributory negligence on the part of the deceased rider. A perusal of Exhibit P3 shows that the width of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8669 CRL.RP No. 100045 of 2020 the road is ten feet, and the accident occurred near the centre of the road. Prior to entering the road in question, the offending vehicle had taken a right turn. Considering the width of the road and the position of the place of the accident, the possibility of contributory negligence by the deceased rider cannot be ruled out. However, even if the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the deceased, if the driver of the offending vehicle is also shown to have been rash and negligent, the ingredients of Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code would still be made out. 11. Although the defence extensively cross-examined the eyewitnesses, no material was elicited to discredit the prosecution’s case. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, after considering the evidence on record, rightly concluded that the accused acted rashly and negligently, causing the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased rider. This Court has also examined the evidence on record, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. After re-assessment, it is manifest that the accused was rash - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8669 CRL.RP No. 100045 of 2020 and negligent in causing the accident. Accordingly, the conviction recorded for the charged offences is hereby upheld. 12. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exhibit P3 clearly demonstrates that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased rider. The perusal of Exhibit P3, this submission is found to be justified and acceptable. It is further submitted that, considering the year of the accident and the present status of the accused, whose wife and children are dependent on his earnings, the sentence of imprisonment warrants modification to a fine. This submission is accordingly accepted. If the sentence is substituted with a fine, and such fine is directed to be paid to the family of the deceased rider, it would, to some extent, provide financial assistance and mitigate the hardship caused by the loss of a family member. 13. In the light of the foregoing 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.418/2011 dated 17.11.2015 on the file of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8669 CRL.RP No. 100045 of 2020 the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Koppal and order in Crl.A. No.45/2015 dated 27.01.2020 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, are hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction. However, the sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court is modified to fine of ₹25,000/-. (iii) The fine amount shall be deposited before the Trial Court within two months 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 Suresh Reddy 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.: 6