- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29681 CRL.RP No. 1093 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1093 OF 2019 BETWEEN: S NAGARAJ S/O SRINIVASA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O KOTE MALA ROAD BELAGOLA VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571438 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P B UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHITRADURGA TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA-577501 (REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 02.11.2018 PASSED BY Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29681 CRL.RP No. 1093 of 2019 THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., CHITRADURGA IN C.C.NO.124/2016 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This revision petition is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.11.2018 passed in C.C.No.124/2016 by the Trial Court and also against the confirmation the said judgment in Crl.A.No.85/2018 dated 03.08.2019 by the Appellate Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 30.12.2015 at about 12.50 p.m. when the deceased Bharath, son of Manjunatha was crossing the road at Challakere Circle, in front of B.B.R. Bar and Restaurant on NH-4 service road, at that time, the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.KA19-D-1036, i.e., the petitioner drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the victim. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29681 CRL.RP No. 1093 of 2019 Due to which, the victim sustained bleeding injuries on his face, shoulder and legs and he was taken to the District Government Hospital and thereafter he was shifted to Chigateri Hospital, Davanagere, but he died on the same day at about 04.00 p.m. Hence, complaint was given. Based on the complaint, police have registered the case under Sections 279, 304A of IPC read with Section 187 of IMV Act. 4. The Trial Court considering the evidence of PW1 to PW9 and the documents at Exs.P1 to P15, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and maximum punishment of one year was given in respect of the offence under Section 304A IPC. The said judgment was questioned before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 5. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29681 CRL.RP No. 1093 of 2019 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that the Trial Court has not properly considered the evidence available on record. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is inconsistent and the First Appellate Court committed an error in re-appreciating the evidence. Both the Courts erred in convicting the petitioner, though the petitioner has explained the circumstances of alleged incident and ought not to have sentenced. 7. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State would submit that there are eye witnesses to the incident and their evidence is consistent and no infirmity in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. The eye- witnesses’ evidence was considered. 8. This Court having considered the evidence available on record and keeping in view the grounds urged in the revision petition, found that there is no infirmity in the order of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the incident was taken place in 2015, almost a decade back and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29681 CRL.RP No. 1093 of 2019 to take leniency and instead of sending the petitioner to suffer the sentence, a monetary compensation may be given to the family of the victim. The Apex Court also taken note of the said fact into consideration and awarded monetary compensation. In view of this accident was taken place long back in 2015 and it is only an accident and not an intentional act and having considered the same, instead of sending the petitioner to suffer the sentence, victim’s family could be compensated. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The revision petition is disposed of. (ii) The conviction is confirmed. But, sentence is modified directing the revision petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- instead of sentence and the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the same before the Trial Court within four weeks from today. (iii) On deposit of the amount, The Trial Court is directed to release the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- each in favour of the parents of the victim. If one of the parents is not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29681 CRL.RP No. 1093 of 2019 there, if mother or father is alive, to pay the amount of Rs.2,80,000/-, on proper identification. The remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- shall vest with the State. (iv) If the revision petitioner fails to deposit the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- within the stipulated time, he shall undergo the sentence as imposed by the Trial Court. (v) The Registry is directed to send the records forthwith to the Trial Court to enable the revision petitioner to deposit the amount before the Trial Court. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN/MD