- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8979 CRL.RP No. 100113 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.100113 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SUBRAY S/O. NARAYAN NAIK, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: HUDGOD, TQ: HONNAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD, BY HONNAVAR P.S. …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 16.03.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.53/2013, AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 28.02.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. JMFC, HONNAVAR, IN C.C.NO.292/2012 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337 AND 304(A) OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 187 OF M.V. ACT AND ETC. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIHG COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8979 CRL.RP No. 100113 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Mahesh Wodeyar, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State. 2. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C. No. 292/2012 dated 28.02.2013, and the judgment rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 53/2013 dated 16.03.2021. 3. The case of the prosecution against the accused is that, on 01.05.2012 at about 2:30 p.m., while driving a lorry bearing registration No. KA-47/2296 in a rash and negligent manner from Honnavar towards Gersappa, the accused dashed against a motorcycle coming from the opposite direction, which was ridden by PW1 and had a pillion rider. As a result of the impact, both PW1 and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries, and the pillion rider subsequently succumbed to the injuries. PW1 lodged a complaint regarding the incident, which is marked as Ex.P1. Based on the said complaint, the Investigating Officer conducted a detailed investigation and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8979 CRL.RP No. 100113 of 2021 filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses, who were cited as PWs.1 to 6, and marked 12 documents as Exhibits P1 to P12. The Trial Court, based on the evidence of PW1—the injured witness and complainant—and the testimonies of two other eyewitnesses, PWs.3 and 4, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. The Trial Court also relied upon the evidence of PW2, Ex.P2 – the spot mahazar, and Ex.P10 – the spot sketch. On such consideration, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of the charged offences and accordingly sentenced him to undergo imprisonment. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 53/2013. The Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record and after considering the findings recorded by the Trial Court, dismissed the appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8979 CRL.RP No. 100113 of 2021 6. Sri Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by PW1. It is contended that PW1, who was the rider of the motorcycle, contributed to the accident, which resulted in the death of the pillion rider. The learned counsel further submits that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused for having driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 7. On the other hand, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent- State, submits that the prosecution has established that the accused was driving the lorry in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident. It is contended that the evidence of PWs.1, 3, and 4, all of whom are eyewitnesses, clearly supports the prosecution’s case. PW1, who was the rider of the motorcycle, has given a detailed account of the incident. The learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8979 CRL.RP No. 100113 of 2021 Appellate Court are based on well-established evidence, and therefore, do not warrant any interference. 8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties and perused the records. 9. The occurrence of the accident on 01.05.2012 at about 2:30 p.m., involving the lorry bearing registration No. KA-47/2296 and a motorcycle, is not in dispute. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the accused was the driver of the offending lorry. Ex.P4 confirms that the deceased succumbed to the grievous injuries sustained in the said accident, while Ex.P6 corroborates that PW1 also suffered injuries in the same incident. These facts are not seriously contested by the revision petitioner. The principal contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the accused was neither rash nor negligent at the time of the accident. However, such a submission is without merit. The evidence of PWs.1, 3, and 4 provides a consistent and detailed account of the incident and clearly establishes that the accident was a consequence of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the accused. Although the said eyewitnesses were - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8979 CRL.RP No. 100113 of 2021 subjected to extensive cross-examination, nothing substantial has been elicited to discredit or impeach their testimony. Consequently, the evidence of the eyewitnesses remains unshaken and fully supports the case of the prosecution. A perusal of Ex.P2—the spot mahazar and Ex.P10—the spot sketch, also indicates that the accident occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving by the accused. 10. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court, upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, have rightly concluded that the accused is guilty of the offences with which he was charged. Both judgments are based on well-established evidence. No infirmity or illegality has been pointed out that would warrant interference with the concurrent findings. Hence, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court stands confirmed. 11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for modification of the sentence of imprisonment to one of fine. It is submitted that the incident occurred in the year 2012, and that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner for his family, which consists of his wife and children. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8979 CRL.RP No. 100113 of 2021 12. Having regard to the year of the accident, the peculiar facts of the present case, and the family circumstances of the accused, wherein his wife and children are dependent on his earnings, this Court is inclined to consider modification of the sentence to one of fine. It is also relevant to note that the offences charged are punishable with imprisonment or with fine or with both. Furthermore, if the fine amount is directed to be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased, Madev, it would, to some extent, mitigate the hardship caused by the loss of a family member. 13. In light of the above findings and observations, 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.292/2012 dated 28.02.2013 on the file of the Principal J.M.F.C., Honavar and order in Crl.A. No.53/2013 dated 16.03.2021 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar are hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction. However, the sentence of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8979 CRL.RP No. 100113 of 2021 imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court is modified to fine of ₹75,000/-. (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. (v) The Trial Court shall release the fine amount in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased Madev 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.: 15