- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8977 CRL.RP No. 100280 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.100280 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRINIVAS GOPAL NAIK, AGED 41 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF TEMPO, R/O: HALDIPUR, TALUK: HONAVAR, (UTTARA KANNADA) PIN-581334. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.P. KANDAGAL, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH PSI, KUMTA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011. …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 PASS AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.69/2013 INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 304-A, PASSED BY THE COURT OF J.M.F.C., KUMTA IN C.C. NO.943/2010 ON 20.03.2013 AND ETC.,. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL 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:8977 CRL.RP No. 100280 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.03.2013 passed in C.C. No.943/2010 by the learned JMFC, Kumta, and the judgment dated 28.10.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.69/2013 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, whereby the conviction and sentence were confirmed. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused on 14.09.2010, being the driver of a pickup van bearing registration No. KA-47-3061, was driving the said vehicle from Kumta to Honnavar in a rash and negligent manner and, dashed against a pedestrian. As a result of the accident, the pedestrian sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same while undergoing treatment at a hospital in Goa. The Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8977 CRL.RP No. 100280 of 2021 3. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses, PW1 to PW8, and marked 17 documents as Exhibits P1 to P17. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused examined himself as DW-1. The trial Court appreciating the evidence available on record, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ₹2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC. Additionally, the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.69/2013. The Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, modified the judgment by setting aside the conviction and sentence of fine imposed for the offence under Section 279 of IPC, while confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8977 CRL.RP No. 100280 of 2021 5. Sri S.P. Kandagal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the prosecution evidence is vitiated by material discrepancies and contradictions in the oral testimony of the witnesses. He further submits that the accident occurred due to the sudden and negligent entry of the deceased onto the road, without taking note of the approaching vehicles. It is contended that the accident was solely attributable to the negligence of the deceased, who failed to exercise due caution while crossing the road. The accused, it is submitted, was driving the vehicle with due care and caution. Learned counsel further contends that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution is insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences charged. 6. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State, submits that PW1, the complainant, has narrated the incident in accordance with the contents of Ex.P1, which stands corroborated by Ex.P2 – the spot mahazar, and Ex.P3 – the spot sketch. It is submitted that Exs.P2 and P3 are in consonance with the evidence of PW1. Learned Additional - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8977 CRL.RP No. 100280 of 2021 Government Advocate further submits that the prosecution has proved its case through PW4, an eyewitness, whose presence at the scene of occurrence is established, as he was running a shop in the vicinity. It is contended that both the trial Court and the appellate Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, have rightly held the accused guilty of the offences charged. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The occurrence of the accident on 14.09.2010 at about 12:45 p.m., involving the pickup van bearing registration No. KA-47-3061 driven by the accused, is not in dispute. The death of the pedestrian as a result of the injuries sustained in the said accident is also undisputed. The nature of the grievous injuries leading to death is evident from Ex.P6 – the postmortem report. The involvement of the said vehicle in the accident stands established through Ex.P17 – the MVI report. In view of this evidence, the factum of the accident and the resultant death is not seriously disputed. However, the vehement contention advanced by the learned counsel for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8977 CRL.RP No. 100280 of 2021 petitioner is that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused, but was solely attributable to the negligence of the deceased. 9. PW1 has reported the incident in his complaint marked as Ex.P1. He is also a witness to the spot mahazar marked as Ex.P2 and has admitted the correctness of its contents as well as the location of the accident as depicted in Ex.P3 – the spot sketch. PW1 has provided a detailed narration of the occurrence. The contents of Exs.P2 and P3 are further corroborated through the examination of PWs.2 and 3. PW4, an eyewitness, has been examined and has furnished a comprehensive account of the incident. On a cumulative consideration of the testimony of PWs.1 to 4, it is evident that the prosecution has successfully established that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Though the defence has subjected these witnesses to extensive cross-examination, no material contradictions have been elicited, nor has any worthwhile information emerged to discredit their testimony. Accordingly, the evidence of these witnesses is found to be credible and trustworthy. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8977 CRL.RP No. 100280 of 2021 10. Ex.P3 is the spot sketch. As per Ex.P3, the width of the road is 24 feet. The accused was driving the vehicle from Kumta towards Honnavar. The accident is shown to have occurred on the extreme right side of the road, leaving a margin of only 5 feet from the edge. This clearly indicates that the accused was driving on the extreme right, encroaching upon the wrong side of the road and beyond the central median. It is evident that the accused entered the wrong side and failed to exercise due care and caution while driving. This supports the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. 11. The trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record, has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Although the accused examined himself as DW1, no material evidence has been brought on record to rebut or disprove the case of the prosecution. The Appellate Court, on a re-appreciation of the entire evidence, has rightly confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8977 CRL.RP No. 100280 of 2021 12. This Court, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, has examined the evidence referred to by the trial Court. On a careful perusal of the same, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court was justified in holding that the accused was rash and negligent, which resulted in the accidental death. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on established evidence on record. The impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity so as to warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the trial Court is affirmed. 13. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident occurred in the year 2010 and that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family, which consists of his wife and children. It is submitted that imposition of a sentence of imprisonment would cause undue hardship to the family. Hence, a plea is made to modify the sentence of imprisonment to one of fine. 14. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2010 and considering the family circumstances of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8977 CRL.RP No. 100280 of 2021 the accused, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence. It is also relevant to note that the offences charged prescribe punishment with imprisonment or with fine or with both. In addition, if the fine amount is directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, it would provide some measure of financial assistance to them and mitigate, to some extent, the hardship caused by the loss of a family member. 15. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The order of conviction as recorded in C.C. No.943/2010 dated 20.03.2013 on the file of the J.M.F.C., Kumta and order in Crl.A. No.69/2013 dated 28.10.2021 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, are hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction. However, the sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court is modified to fine of ₹50,000/-. (iii) The fine amount shall be deposited before the Trial Court within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) In default of payment of fine within the time as ordered, the revision petitioner/accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8977 CRL.RP No. 100280 of 2021 (v) The Trial Court shall release the fine amount in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased electronically on due identification. (vi) The bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled. Registry to return the trial Court records along with a copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE CLK CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27