- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4686 CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100257 OF 2016 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: RAVI @ RAVICHANDRA S/O. BASAVARAJ LAKAMAPUR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE, R/O. GULAGANJIKOPPA, GUDI ONI, DHARWAD-580001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAY MALALI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE THROUGH EAST TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, REP. BY THROUGH S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE CONCERNED RECORDS OF THE LOWER COURT AS WELL AS THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29/10/2014 PASSED BY THE JMFC I COURT HUBBALLI IN C.C.NO.12/2013 AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30/06/2016 PASSED BY I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 78/2014. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.21 10:35:38 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4686 CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2016 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Vijay Malali, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.12/2013 whereby accused is convicted for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.78/2014. 3. At the outset, Sri.Vijaya Malali would contend that the conviction order is bad in law inasmuch as it is the negligence of the deceased walking on the road and therefore, revision petition needs to be allowed. 4. Alternatively, he would contend that in the event, this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that very accused himself shifted the injured to Vivekananda Hospital and ultimately on account of the head injury sustained by the injured, he succumbed - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4686 CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2016 to the injuries and therefore the conduct of the petitioner needs to be appreciated and instead of directing him to undergo imprisonment, fine amount can be enhanced in a reasonable sum and sentence of imprisonment may be set aside, taking note of time of the accident is 4.45 am and it was in the month of September-2012, where the fog conditions would be there and visibility is poor. 5. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the revision grounds including the alternate submissions with vehemence. 6. He would further contend that in the accused statement, accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances and mitigating circumstances pleaded for the first time before this Court, revision petition needs to be dismissed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4686 CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2016 7. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that accused was the driver of the car bearing No.KA-25/C-5867 which dashed against the pedestrian who was a police constable. Time of accident is around 4.45 am near railway gate on Gadag-Hubballi road. PW.3 is one of the inmates of the car, his evidence is placed on record and appreciated by both the Courts for maintaining the conviction. 9. On close scrutiny of his evidence, it is crystal clear that he heard a loud sound near railway gate and immediately he got down so also the other inmates. They saw one person with bleeding injuries in police uniform. Immediately, petitioner herein being the driver of the car and others shifted the injured to Vivekananda Hospital in the same car. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4686 CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2016 10. Later on, despite best treatment, on account of the heavy injuries sustained in the incident, injured succumbed and case came to be registered against the driver of the car for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. Material evidence placed on record is thus, sufficient enough to maintain the conviction. 11. This would take this Court to the next limb of argument of the counsel for the revision petitioner viz., quantum of sentence. 12. Taking note of the conduct of the petitioner herein, in taking the injured in the very same car and admitting him to Vivekananda Hospital, this Court is of the considered opinion that discretionary powers vested in this Court can be exercised in favour of the petitioner in modifying the sentence ordered by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the judge in First Appellate Court by setting aside the imprisonment period and enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- payable by the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4686 CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2016 petitioner in two installments to the dependants of the deceased. 13. Further, petitioner being the sole bread earner and eking out his livelihood in a decent manner and having a family to maintain is a factor that has been taken note of by this Court while modifying the sentence. 14. In view of the foregoing discussions, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences under Section 279 and 304A of IPC, sentence ordered by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified as under: (i) Jail sentence ordered by the learned trial Magistrate for a period of one year for the offence under Section 304A of IPC, which was modified in appeal for a period of six months is hereby set aside by directing the accused to pay enhanced fine amount of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4686 CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2016 Rs.1,50,000/- to be payable in two installments to the dependants of the deceased. (ii) First installment of Rs.75,000/- is ordered to be paid on or before 30.03.2025 and remaining sum of Rs.75,000/- is ordered to be paid on or before 30.04.2025. (iii) Failure to make the payment of enhanced fine amount would result in automatically restoration of sentence of six months modified by the First Appellate Court. (iv) After the receipt of fine amount, the entire sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the dependants of the deceased under due identification. (v) Office is directed to return the trial Court records with copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC para 1 and 2 HMB CT:PA , LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 32