- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8981 CRL.RP No. 100127 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.100127 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. JANARDHAN S/O. NARAYAN MADIVAL, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: NAVIGON, KALLATTIKERI-581334, TQ: HONNAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011, THROUGH HONNAVAR POLICE STATION. …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 JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 29.03.2021 PASSED BY THE LD. II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.88/2009, AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 07.07.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. ADDL. JMFC, HONNAVAR IN C.C.NO.508/2008 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279, AND 304-A OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FOR THE AFORE SAID OFFENCES AND ETC.,. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIHG COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8981 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner-accused, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State. 2. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the accused, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C. No.508/2008 dated 07.07.2009 by the Additional J.M.F.C., Honavar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Criminal Appeal No.88/2009 dated 29.03.2021 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate Court’). 3. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 22.04.2008, the accused, being the driver of a KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-31/F-748, while proceeding - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8981 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2021 from Honavar to Gersoppa, drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner. While overtaking a Bajaj M-80 scooter bearing Registration No.KA-30/J-6790, the bus struck the scooter from its left side, causing the rider to fall. Consequently, the rear wheel of the bus ran over the rider’s head, resulting in his instantaneous death at the spot. Pursuant to the incident, an FIR was registered, and upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses as PWs-1 to 5 and marked 8 documents as Exhibits P1 to P8. The accused marked 1 document as Exhibit D1. The trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the accused and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, and further - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8981 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2021 sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. 5. Challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.88/2009. The appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence available on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. Sri Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the material evidence relied upon by the prosecution is insufficient to sustain the conviction for the offences charged. He further contends that the testimony of the eyewitnesses, as well as the documentary evidence, is riddled with contradictions and omissions. It is his submission that the accused did not collide with the two-wheeler ridden by the deceased; rather, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8981 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2021 deceased, having lost balance on his own, fell under the rear wheel of the bus. Such an act, according to the learned counsel, cannot be attributed to any negligence on the part of the accused. Learned counsel further submits that although one of the witnesses has deposed regarding the death of the two-wheeler rider due to injuries sustained in the accident involving the bus in question, none of the witnesses have specifically spoken about any rash or negligent driving on the part of the accused. It is his contention that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of PWs.1 and 3, and that the evidence on record does not establish that these witnesses had, in fact, witnessed the accident. 7. On the other hand, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that PWs.1 and 3 are eyewitnesses to the incident. He contends that Exs.P7 (photograph) and P8 (spot sketch) corroborate the testimony of PWs.1 and 3. He further submits that Ex.P5 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8981 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2021 (Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report) establishes the occurrence of the accident, and Ex.P4 (Post-Mortem Report) confirms that the deceased died due to head injuries sustained in the said accident. The learned AGA submits that the trial Court, having appreciated the evidence on record, has rightly recorded the conviction, which has been justifiably affirmed by the appellate Court. 8. Considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the material evidence on record. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, and on perusal of the material evidence on record, it is not in dispute that an accident occurred on 22.04.2008 at about 6:00 p.m., involving a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-31/F- 748 and a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-30/J- 6790. The fact that the rider of the motorcycle succumbed to injuries sustained in the said accident is also - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8981 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2021 undisputed. Ex.P4-the post-mortem report clearly establishes that the deceased rider died due to head injuries sustained in the accident. The involvement of the bus is evident from the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report marked as Ex.P5. The accused has been identified as the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant point in time. Once it is established that the accident occurred and that the cause of death of the deceased was due to injuries sustained therein, the next issue that arises for consideration is whether the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 10. In order to establish rashness and negligence, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 3 as eyewitnesses. PW.1 is also the complainant, as per Ex.P1. Both PWs.1 and 3 have testified to the incident in its entirety. Their versions are consistent and corroborative of each other. Despite being subjected to cross-examination, no material contradictions were elicited, and their testimony remained unimpeached. Ex.P7 (photograph) and Ex.P8 (spot sketch) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8981 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2021 further support the case of the prosecution and establish rashness and negligence on the part of the accused, as they depict the precise location of the accident. 11. A reference to Ex.P8-the spot sketch, is particularly useful in assessing the aspect of negligence. The accused was driving the bus from Honavar to Gersoppa. The road at the place of accident is 23 feet wide. The accident occurred at the extreme edge on the right side of the road, leaving no space for the two- wheeler to manoeuvre. According to the prosecution, while overtaking the motorcycle, the accused suddenly swerved the bus towards the extreme edge of the road, as a result of which the motorcycle rider came under the rear wheels of the bus. Having regard to the evidence on record, particularly the width of the road and the position of the vehicles at the time of the incident, it can safely be concluded that the accused failed to exercise due care and caution while driving the bus. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8981 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2021 12. The trial Court, upon consideration of the aforementioned evidence, arrived at the conclusion that the accused had committed the offences with which he was charged. The appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the very same evidence, confirmed the judgment of conviction. Both the judgments are based on duly established evidence on record and do not warrant interference. 13. This Court has also independently perused the evidence on record, as referred to by the trial Court, and finds no reason to take a contrary view. The evidence on record is sufficient to establish the commission of the offence by the accused. The vehement contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not point out any material irregularity or evidence warranting interference with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts. The order of conviction stands confirmed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8981 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2021 14. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the year of the accident and the present family circumstances namely, that the petitioner’s wife and children are dependent on his earnings and further pointing out that the petitioner is employed as a driver with the KSRTC, submits that imposition of a sentence of imprisonment would adversely affect his service and livelihood. Accordingly, learned counsel pleads for modification of the sentence of imprisonment to one of fine. 15. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2008, and considering the present circumstances wherein the wife and children of the accused are dependent on his earnings, this Court finds it appropriate to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence. Another relevant consideration is that the petitioner is presently serving as a driver in the KSRTC, and a sentence of imprisonment would undoubtedly affect his employment and, consequently, the well-being of his - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8981 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2021 dependent family members. However, these mitigating factors cannot be a ground to absolve the accused of all punishment. The offences charged prescribe punishment of imprisonment, or fine, or both. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by imposing a sentence of fine in lieu of imprisonment. Such an approach would also serve a dual purpose, inasmuch as directing the fine amount to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased would provide some financial relief and mitigate the hardship suffered by the deceased’s family. Accordingly, the fine amount is quantified at Rs.50,000/-. 16. Hence, 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.508/2008 dated 07.07.2009 by the Additional - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8981 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2021 J.M.F.C., Honavar, and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Criminal Appeal No.88/2009 dated 29.03.2021 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, is hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction. (iii) The sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court is modified to payment of fine of Rs.50,000/-. (iv) The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner/accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trail Court. (v) The trial Court shall pay the fine amount deposited by the revision petitioner in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased, through electronically after due identification. (vi) The bail bonds and sureties if any, shall stand cancelled. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8981 CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2021 (vii) The conviction and imposition of fine shall not affect the service conditions of the petitioner/accused. Registry to return the TCR forthwith along with a copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16