- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9474 CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100278 OF 2016 (397 OF Cr.PC/438 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: SHRI. DARMAREDDI VISHNAPPA MUDIGOUDAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER NWKRTC, R/O. MANKUR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAJID AHMED GOODWALA, AMICUS CURIAE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED SOUTH TRAFFIC POLICE INSPECTOR, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 20.07.2016 PASSED BY THE VTH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.109/2015 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER BY SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 05.09.2015 IN C.C. NO.68/2015 PASSED BY THE JMFC 1ST COURT, HUBBALLI AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9474 CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2016 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.68/2015 by the JMFC-I Court at Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’) and the judgment dated 20.07.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.109/2015 by the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellate Court’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.09.2008 at about 9:30 p.m. on Pune – Bengaluru Highway near Bidnal Cross, Hubballi, the accused drove KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-27/F-626 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and tried to overtake the another bus infront of his bus dashed the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25/TC-100 resultantly the rider of the motorcycle sustained fetal injuries and succumbed to those injuries. 3. PW1 furnished the information to the jurisdictional Station House Officer, South Traffic Police Station, Hubballi who - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9474 CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2016 registered Crime No.139/2008 and on completion of investigation filed the charge sheet. The Trial Court took the cognizance, accused was on bail during the trial. The trial Court recorded the plea of the accused, he denied the charges tried for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304-A of IPC. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence convicted the accused for the said offences and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also fine for the offences punishable under Section 279 of IPC and sentenced for a period of 1 year and fine of ₹2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. The appellant assailed the order of conviction and sentence before the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.109/2015. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence available on record concurred with the finding of the trial Court rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved, this revision petition is filed. 4. Sri Sajid Ahmed Goodwala, learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the prosecution has mainly relied on the testimony of PWs.1, 4, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9474 CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2016 6 and 8. However, PW1 has clearly deposed that he was not present at the time of accident. PW4 is a friend of PW1 who was also joined after the accident. Hence, placing reliance on the evidence of these witnesses by the trial Court has resulted in recording the erroneous finding. It is submitted that the evidence of PW6 do not support the case of prosecution as he has deposed that the driver of the bus drove the bus in high speed. However in cross-examination, he could not explain the speed of the bus and the said evidence is not supported with any corroboration. Hence, the same also cannot be relied. It is further submitted that PW8 is a bus conductor who clearly deposed that the bus was stopped to enable four passenger to get-down at the time rider of the motorcycle came and hit the bus resulted in accident. The evidence of PW8 compared with the evidence of other witnesses, it creates doubt with regard to the causing of accident by the accused. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned orders. 5. In alternative, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the accused is in judicial custody from 07.04.2025 due to his non-appearance before this Court and he seeks to restrict the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9474 CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2016 sentence to the aforesaid period and release the accused by allowing the petition. 6. Per contra, Sri Praveen K.Uppar, learned AGA for the respondent/State supports the impugned orders and submits that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution have supported the case of prosecution and the trial Court on meticulous appreciation of the evidence recorded clear finding that the eyewitnesses have deposed that the accused was negligent and caused the accident. Hence, does not call for any interference. He seeks to dismiss the petition. 7. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondent/State. Meticulously perused the material on record. 8. The evidence on record indicates that one Sri Basappa Nellur-PW1 is informant about the accident to the jurisdictional police. He has deposed before the Court that while coming back to his residence from working around 9:00 to 9:30 p.m. along with PW4 - the driver of KSRTC Bus overtook another bus which was infront of him and dashed against the motorcycle. The evidence of said witness indicates that he saw - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9474 CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2016 that the people gathered near the spot of the accident and thereafter he went along with PW4. If that version of PW1 is accepted, then he cannot be called as an eyewitness to the incident. However, the trial Court has mainly relied on evidence of PWs.1 and 4 and come to conclusion that the appellant was negligent. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 who are the panch witnesses to Ex.P2 have spoken only with regard to the mahazar and their signature on Ex.P2. PW5 is another eyewitness deposed that he did not see who was the driver of the bus. Hence, no much reliance can be given to the evidence of PW5. PW6 in his evidence has clearly deposed that the bus came on high speed dashed against the motorcycle resulted in accident. Even in cross-examination, he is consistent with his evidence with regard to the speed of the bus and causing accident. He has specifically denied in the cross-examination that there were speed breakers at the spot of the accident. On entire reading of the evidence on record, it can be clearly conclude that the accident is caused due to the negligence of the revision petitioner. PW8 who is a conductor of the bus obviously would speak in support of his co-employee. Hence, no much reliance can be placed to his evidence. PW7 is a Motor - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9474 CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2016 Vehicle Inspector who has inspected the vehicle involved in the accident and issued the report at Ex.P3. The said report indicates that both the vehicle have damaged. The Investigation Officer – PW9 narrated the manner of conducting investigation. On perusal of the investigation material and the evidence on record, the trial Court has come to conclusion that the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the accused. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the trial Court as well as finding of the Appellate Court in interfering with the order of conviction. 9. The records indicate that the accused is in judicial custody from 07.04.2025 nearly 3 months 25 days. Taking note of the said aspect and also keeping in mind that the accused is aged about 45 years and suffering from different ailments as contended by the learned Amicus Curiae. Learned Amicus Curiae also contended that the accused had a family consisting of wife and children and due to the incarnation of the accused, the family members are earning their livelihood as daily wage labour in the field and the revision petitioner is only bread - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9474 CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2016 earner of the family. Considering the fact that the offence committed by the petitioner is unintentional though it is negligent act and punishable. Having regard to the fact that the accused is in custody for more than 3 months 25 days, I am of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is modified by enhancing the fine amount. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in- part. ii. The judgment passed by the JMFC-I Court, Hubballi in C.C.No.68/2015 dated 05.09.2015 and confirmed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad (sitting at Hubballi) in Criminal Appeal No.109/2015 dated 20.07.2016 is affirmed to the extent of conviction. iii. The sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial Court is modified by ordering the revision petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and the said fine amount shall be deposited within three - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9474 CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2016 months before the trial Court. In default in payment of fine amount, the revision petitioner/accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court. iv. The trial Court shall release the fine amount in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased Ulavappa by following proper procedure. v. The prison authorities are directed to release the revision petitioner forthwith. vi. Bail bonds and surety stands cancelled. vii. Registry is directed to transmit back the original records along with copy of this order to the trial Court. viii. The registry to pay remuneration of ₹15,000/- to the learned Amicus Curiae. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE CLK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1