- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182502026 NC: 2026:KHC:37107 CRL.RP No. 433 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.433 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHETHAN S/O. JAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT KALKUNI VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUDHA G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADIWALA TRAFFIC POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT UNIT, BENGALURU DR. AMBEKAR VEEDI BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 08.12.2025 PASSED BY HONBLE LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-59), BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE 1ST APPELLATE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182502026 NC: 2026:KHC:37107 CRL.RP No. 433 of 2026 COURT AND CONSEQUENTLY TO SET ASIDE JUDGEMENT AND JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 09.01.2020 PASSED BY THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT-VI, BENGALURU IN CC NO.2320/2018 AND TO ACQUIT THE ACCUSED. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 2. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that on 19.01.2018 at 10.30 p.m., the accused being the driver of car bearing registration No.KA-13-B-4875 drove the same on Hosuru Main Road, near Garvebavipalya bus standing towards Garvebavipalya junction to Bommanahalli junction in a rash and negligent manner and hit to the pedestrian Murthy, who is aged about 57 years when he was standing on the side of the road. Due to that, deceased Murthy has received grievous injuries on his head and on the other part of the body and public, who were present at the spot shifted the injured to the hospital through ambulance and on 23.01.2018, injured Murthy - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182502026 NC: 2026:KHC:37107 CRL.RP No. 433 of 2026 succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Hence, invoked the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. The police investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet and cognizance was taken, accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claims trial. 3. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P11. The accused was subjected to 313 statement and he did not choose to lead any defence evidence. 4. The Trial Court taken note of evidence of eye witness P.W.1, who deposed that on 19.01.2018 at 10.30 p.m., he was standing near Garvebavipalya bus stop, at that time, the driver of the car came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the pedestrian, who fell down and received grievous injuries and he only took the deceased to the hospital along with C.W.1. Later on, he had received the information that he succumbed to the injuries and P.W.2/C.W.3 is an eyewitness to the incident and he reiterates the same. So also, P.W.3 is also an eyewitness to the accident and he supports the case of the prosecution. P.W.4 is a hearsay witness and P.W.5 - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182502026 NC: 2026:KHC:37107 CRL.RP No. 433 of 2026 is the Investigating Officer and in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to P.W.3, who have deposed before the Court witnessing the accident, nothing is elicited from the mouth of these witnesses. The owner of the offending vehicle is examined as P.W.6 and I.M.V. Inspector is also examined as P.W.7 and with regard to identification of the accused also, no dispute. P.W.8 is also another Investigating Officer, who has investigated the matter completely and filed the charge-sheet. 5. The Trial Court also having considered the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, who are the eyewitnesses, in paragraph No.27 comes to the conclusion that nothing is elicited to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and also taken note of IMV report given by P.W.6 and P.W.7 and convicted the accused and imposed sentence for a period of 1 month and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and imposed sentence for a period of 6 months and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182502026 NC: 2026:KHC:37107 CRL.RP No. 433 of 2026 6. The same is challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.269/2020 and the First Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence, particularly considering the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, who are the eyewitnesses, in paragraph No.23 comes to the conclusion that Ex.P11 was an account of intra cranial hemorrhage as a result of head injury sustained by the deceased and hence, he succumbed to the injuries. The injuries found on deceased are also would be found in Ex.P10 which is inquest panchanama. Having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, confirmed the order of the Trial Court. 7. Now, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating the evidence, particularly contradictions found in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and contend that P.W.3 and P.W.4 have not supported the case of prosecution. It is also contended that P.W.5 deposed with regard to conducting the investigation, P.W.7 deposed with regard to inspecting the vehicle and P.W.8 deposed with regard - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182502026 NC: 2026:KHC:37107 CRL.RP No. 433 of 2026 to conducting further investigation in the matter and the evidence was sufficient to create suspicion and the appraisal of evidence on record by the learned Magistrate suffers from its illegality and it requires interference. The First Appellate Court also committed an error in not considering the evidence available on record in a proper perspective. 8. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State in his argument would vehemently contend that prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 is consistent and corroborates with each other and the same is taken note of by the Trial Court, particularly in paragraph No.27 and no contradictory evidence is recorded to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and also taken note of 6 photographs which have been marked as Ex.P2 with regard to particular spot, where the deceased was proceeding. The deceased was a pedestrian, who was standing near the bus stop and rough sketch is marked as Ex.P6, IMV report is marked as Exs.P7 and P8 and P.M. report as Ex.P11 which - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182502026 NC: 2026:KHC:37107 CRL.RP No. 433 of 2026 discloses that the deceased was aged about 57 years at the time of the accident. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed an error in appreciating the evidence and the reasoning of both the Courts suffer from its legality and correctness? (ii) What order? Point No.(i): 10. Having taken note of submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 is very clear that accident has taken place at 10.30 p.m., that too, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 were present at the spot and nothing is elicited from the mouth of these witnesses to disbelieve the case of the prosecution and - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182502026 NC: 2026:KHC:37107 CRL.RP No. 433 of 2026 they have specifically stated that having noticed the accident, shifted the injured to the hospital and injured succumbed to the injuries after 4 days and the evidence available on record does not disclose any contra evidence and the same is consistent with the nature of injuries as well as cause of death and P.M. report is also marked as Ex.P11. Having taken note of he sketch which is marked as Ex.P6, it clearly discloses that accident has occurred near the bus stand and car has come and went towards extreme left side of the road and the width of the road is 37 feet and accident has taken place at the edge of the road at a distance of 3 feet and the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 corroborates with the case of the prosecution and Ex.P8-IMV report also discloses nature of damages caused to the car. Having taken note of material available on record, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence available on record. 11. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this Court has to take note of the fact that accident has occurred in 2018 and almost 8 years - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182502026 NC: 2026:KHC:37107 CRL.RP No. 433 of 2026 have been elapsed. The Trial Court sentenced the accused for a period of 6 months and imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC and instead of confirming the sentence, this Court can award compensation to the family of the deceased and the same would meet the ends of justice. When the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC is invoked and the serious offence of negligence under Section 279 of IPC merges with the offence under Section 304(A), the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence under Section 279 of IPC. Hence, it requires interference. 12. The Apex Court in the judgment in MAHADEVANNA D.M. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER passed in SLP (Crl.)No.4563/2022 dated 18.05.2026 in a case of BMTC driver, imposed the fine of Rs.5,00,000. Having taken note of accident has occurred in 2018 and almost 8 years have been elapsed and that too, deceased was aged about 57 years as per the P.M. report, compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- is awarded to the family of the deceased to meet the ends of justice, in lieu of sentence, since - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182502026 NC: 2026:KHC:37107 CRL.RP No. 433 of 2026 it is an accident and not an accidental act. Hence, I answer point No.(i) accordingly. Point No.(ii): 13. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed-in- part. (ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 279 of IPC is set aside and the Trial Court is ordered to refund the fine amount, if any deposited to the accused in respect of the offence under Section 279 of IPC. (iii) The conviction in respect of the offence under Section 304(A) is confirmed and the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court in a sum of Rs.10,000/- is enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/- to be payable to the family of the deceased i.e., spouse on proper identification. (iv) The petitioner is directed to deposit the said amount within 6 weeks from today. If the - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010182502026 NC: 2026:KHC:37107 CRL.RP No. 433 of 2026 accused fails to deposit the amount within 6 weeks, he has to undergo sentence as ordered by the Trial Court for a period of 6 months and deposit the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- as imposed by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36