- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8898 CRL.RP No. 100208 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100208 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: SRI. RAJU S/O. SHIVARAI DIGAL AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC DRIVER, R/O: BORAGAL VILLAGE, TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH CPI, SANKESHWAR POLICE STATION, NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 20/10/2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SANKESHWAR IN C.C.NO.712/2013 CONFIRMED BY THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT CHIKODI VIDE ITS JUDGMENT DATED 04/11/2020 PASSED IN CRL. APPEAL NO.150/2016 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279, 337 AND 304-A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIHG COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8898 CRL.RP No. 100208 of 2020 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Srinand A. Pachhapure, 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 against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 20.10.2016 passed in C.C. No.712/2013 by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Sankeshwar, and the order dated 04.11.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.150/2016 by VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikodi 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.05.2013, the accused was driving a KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-22/F-1939, which collided with a Bolero Pick-Up goods vehicle bearing registration No. KA-23/A- 2386, proceeding in the opposite direction from Belagavi to Athani. The driver of Bolero vehicle died due to the injuries suffered in the accident. The accused was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the IPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8898 CRL.RP No. 100208 of 2020 4. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses as PWs 1 to 18 and marked 29 documents as Exhibits P1 to P29 in support of its case. The trial Court, upon considering the evidence of eyewitnesses PWs 4 to 6 and PW.8-who were inmates of the bus—and PWs 1 and 13-who were inmates of the Bolero Pick-Up goods vehicle, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused-driver. 5. The trial Court convicted the accused for the charged offences and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC, three months' imprisonment for the offence under Section 337 of the IPC, six months' imprisonment for the offence under Section 338 of the IPC, and two years' imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC, apart from imposing a fine of Rs.500/-, Rs.1,000/-, and Rs.1,500/-, respectively. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8898 CRL.RP No. 100208 of 2020 No.150/2016. The Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order dated 20.10.2016 passed by the trial Court. 7. Sri Srinand A. Pachhapure, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the evidence of the eyewitnesses is not consistent with regard to the rashness and negligence attributed to the accused-bus driver. It is submitted that, having regard to the place of the accident as depicted in Exhibits P2 to P5 (spot mahazar) and Exhibit P29 (spot sketch), the accident would not have occurred but for the contributory negligence of the driver of the other vehicle, i.e., the deceased. It is further submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to sustain a conviction for the charged offences. 8. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State, submits that the inmates of both vehicles involved in the accident have consistently deposed that the accident - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8898 CRL.RP No. 100208 of 2020 occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused, i.e., the driver of the bus. The learned AGA further submits that Exhibit P29 and other evidence on record clearly establish that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the accused. It is further submitted that both the trial Court and the Appellate Court, upon due appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, have rightly recorded concurrent findings holding the accused guilty of the charged offences, and no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned order. 9. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. The occurrence of the accident on 02.05.2013 involving the Bolero Pick-Up goods vehicle bearing registration No. KA-23/A-2386 and the KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-22/F-1939 is not in dispute. The accused was the driver of the KSRTC bus, and the deceased was the driver of the Bolero Pick-Up goods vehicle, facts which are also undisputed. As per Exhibit P20, the deceased died due - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8898 CRL.RP No. 100208 of 2020 to hemorrhage and shock resulting from an injury to a vital organ-the brain. The injuries sustained were the direct cause of death. The fact that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident is not in doubt, and his death due to such injuries stands proved through Exhibit P20. PW1 and PW13 were inmates of the Bolero Pick-Up goods vehicle, while PWs 4 to 6 and PW8 were inmates of the KSRTC bus. All these eyewitnesses have consistently deposed and narrated a complete account of the incident. No material inconsistencies are found in their testimony to disbelieve that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. On an overall consideration of the evidence, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus driver. Nothing substantial was elicited in cross- examination to discredit the testimony of the eyewitnesses. 11. Further, Exhibits P2, P4, and P29 establish that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused. The possible contributory negligence of the deceased is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8898 CRL.RP No. 100208 of 2020 immaterial, if the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the negligence of the accused so as to sustain a conviction. 12. The trial Court, upon consideration of the above evidence, has rightly concluded that the accused committed the offences as stated in the charge sheet. The conviction recorded by the trial Court is based on cogent and reliable evidence, and no grounds are made out for interference. 13. The Appellate Court reassessed the evidence and examined the findings recorded by the trial Court, and rightly upheld the conviction. This Court, upon independent examination of the evidence referred to above, is of the view that the conviction recorded by the trial Court warrants no interference. The findings recorded by the trial Court are based on the evidence available on record. There is no contrary material brought on record to take a different view or to point out any infirmity or error in the findings of the trial Court. Hence, the conviction is confirmed. 14. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is employed as a driver - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8898 CRL.RP No. 100208 of 2020 with the KSRTC. It is submitted that if he is sentenced to imprisonment, he would lose his employment, thereby causing hardship to his family, consisting of his wife and children. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no source of livelihood other than his salary. The offences charged prescribe punishment of imprisonment, or with fine, or with both. It is also submitted that the accused has no prior criminal antecedents or involvement in any other offences. On these grounds, the learned counsel prays 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. 15. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2013, the age of the accused, 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 of imprisonment, or with fine, or with both. However, while extending the benefit of leniency to the accused, the loss of human life - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8898 CRL.RP No. 100208 of 2020 cannot be overlooked. Undoubtedly, no amount of monetary compensation can truly 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 as compensation, it would, to some extent, mitigate the hardship caused to them. 16. In view of the foregoing, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. ii. The order of the trial Court in C.C. No. 712/2013 dated 20.10.2016 and further confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.150/2016 dated 04.11.2020 is hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction. iii. The sentence imposed to undergo imprisonment is modified by substituting with fine amount of ₹75,000/-. iv. Six weeks time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court from the date of receipt of copy of this order. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8898 CRL.RP No. 100208 of 2020 v. The trial Court shall disburse the fine amount electronically in favour of legal heirs of the deceased Prashanth Mali 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. viii. The conviction and imposition of fine amount shall not affect the job of the petitioner. 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.: 15