- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8961 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100055 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: SRI. ASIFSAB S/O. GARIBSAB NADAF, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: NELLIKOPPA, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST HAVERI-581110 (NOW IN JC) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAGINELLI POLICE STATION, REPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580008. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION FILED U/S 397 R/W SEC. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 14/12/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI SITTING AT RANEBENNUR IN CRL.A.NO.29/2020 AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 29/02/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BYADAGI IN CC NO.50/2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.279, 337, 304(A) OF IPC AND SEC.3(1) R/W SEC.181, 134(A)(B) R/W SEC.187 OF M.V. ACT. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIHG COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8961 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2021 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Naveen Chatrad, 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 assailing the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in C.C. No.50/2018 dated 29.02.2020, and the appellate order passed in Criminal Appeal No.29/2020 dated 14.12.2020. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.05.2018 at around 10:00 a.m., the accused was driving an auto-rickshaw bearing No. KA-27/B-3871 in a rash and negligent manner and collided with a neem tree. At the time of the accident, the accused was carrying three passengers. All three passengers sustained injuries, and one of them succumbed to the injuries. Based on the complaint lodged by PW.1, an inmate of the auto-rickshaw, as per Ex.P1, investigation was conducted and a charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8961 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2021 304A of the IPC, and under Sections 3(1) read with Section 181, and Sections 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 to PW8 and marked Exhibits P1 to P21. The trial Court, upon considering the evidence of PW1 and PW4, who are eye- witnesses and were travelling in the auto-rickshaw, held that the accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner and that the accident occurred due to such negligence. Though PW5 was also examined as an eye-witness, he turned hostile. The trial Court further considered the testimony of PW2, a panch witness to Ex.P8. The Trial Court appreciating the entire evidence on record held that the accused was guilty of the charged offences. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.29/2020. The Appellate Court, re-appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order dated 29.02.2020 passed by the Trial Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8961 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2021 6. Sri Naveen Chatrad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the accident occurred due to ongoing repair work on the road. He further submits that, owing to the poor condition of the road, the accident was beyond the control of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient to establish the ingredients of the charged offences. The learned counsel contends that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are not based on properly established evidence. 7. On the other hand, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that PW1 and PW4, who were inmates of the offending vehicle, have provided a detailed account of the incident. It is submitted that the testimony of PW5, another eye-witness who turned hostile, has no material impact on the case of the prosecution. Further, PW2, a panch witness to Exhibit P8, has supported the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses has not elicited any material contradictions to discredit the prosecution's case. The learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8961 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2021 concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts are based on the evidence placed on record, and no grounds are made out to warrant interference with the impugned orders. 8. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 9. The occurrence of the accident on 14.05.2018 involving the auto-rickshaw bearing No. KA-27/B-3871, driven by the accused, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that PW1 and PW4 were inmates of the said auto-rickshaw. Furthermore, the fact that the deceased, Hanumavva Hanumantappa Ballary, was travelling in the said auto-rickshaw is also undisputed. Ex.P13 – the post-mortem report, discloses that the death of Hanumavva Hanumantappa was due to the injuries sustained in the said road accident. The evidence on record establishes that the injuries were caused in the alleged accident. 10. The evidence of PWs.1 and 4 clearly establishes that the accused was rash and negligent in his driving, which resulted in the accident. The submission of the learned counsel - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8961 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2021 for the petitioner that the accident occurred due to the poor condition of the road is untenable. Exhibits P4, P5, P6, P8, and P9 conclusively establish that the road was in a motorable condition and that the condition of the road did not contribute to the occurrence of the accident. In the light of the evidence on record, the only possible conclusion is that the accused was rash and negligent in causing the accident and the resultant death of Hanumavva Hanumantappa. The Trial Court, based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the driver of the auto-rickshaw is guilty of the charged offences. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced detailed arguments, he has not been able to point out any error or infirmity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. 11. On perusal of the orders passed by both the Courts, it is evident that the findings are well-reasoned and are duly supported by the evidence on record. No grounds are made out to warrant interference with the concurrent findings, insofar as the conviction of the accused is concerned. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8961 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2021 12. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused is an auto-rickshaw driver and that the accident occurred in the year 2018, when he was aged about 24 years. It is further submitted that subsequent to the incident, the accused got married and is now having one minor child, and that he is the sole breadwinner of the family. It is also submitted that the accused has no prior criminal antecedents and is not involved in any other offences. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that a lenient view may be taken with regard to the sentence imposed. The aforesaid submission is not disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate. 13. Having regard to the fact that the incident occurred in the year 2018, the age of the accused at the time of the incident, and the further circumstance that he is the sole breadwinner of his family, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence is concerned. It is also pertinent to note that the offences charged prescribe punishment with imprisonment or fine or both. However, while extending the benefit of leniency to the accused, the loss of human life cannot - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8961 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2021 be overlooked. Undoubtedly, no amount of monetary compensation can adequately compensate for the loss of life. Nevertheless, if the sentence of imprisonment is modified to a sentence of fine, and the said amount is directed to be paid to the family of the deceased by way of compensation, it would, to some extent, mitigate the hardship caused to them. 14. In the light of the above, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. ii. The order of the trial Court in C.C. No. 50/2018 dated 29.02.2020 and further confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.29/2020 dated 14.12.2020 is hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction. iii. The sentence imposed to undergo imprisonment is modified by substituting with fine amount of ₹65,000/-. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8961 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2021 iv. Eight weeks time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court from the date of receipt of copy of this order. v. The trial Court shall disburse the fine amount electronically in favour of legal heirs of the deceased Hanumavva Hanumantappa Ballary after due identification. vi. In default in payment of fine amount, accused- petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. vii. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Registry to return the trial Court records along with copy of this order. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE HMB CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8