Karnataka High Court

T. Kumar S/O Timmaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 July, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579
                                                    CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2019


                HC-KAR



                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                     DHARWAD BENCH

                           DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                          BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
                       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100194 OF 2019
                                  (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
                BETWEEN:

                T. KUMAR S/O. TIMMAIAH,
                AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
                R/O: DODDABALAPUR,
                BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
                BENGALURU-561205.
                                                                  ...PETITIONER
                (BY SRI. P.V. MOGALI, ADVOCATE)

                AND:

                THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                CPI HALIYAL CIRCLE, HALIYAL,
                REPRESENTED BY
                STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
                HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, DHARWAD.
                                                                ...RESPONDENT
                (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIHG
COURT OF              THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
KARNATAKA
                SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
                ORDER DATED 05.07.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL.
                DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI
                (ITINERY AT YALLAPUR) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.180/2013, DATED
                05.07.2019 IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL BY CONFIRMING THE
                ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.432/2009 DATED
                05.12.2010 BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HALYAL, FOR
                THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337 AND
                304(A) OF I.P.C. BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION
                IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
                                     -2-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579
                                          CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2019


HC-KAR



     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

                                 ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND)

Heard Sri P.V. Mogali, learned counsel for the revision

petitioner and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional

Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

2. This criminal revision petition is filed by the accused

challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 05.12.2010 passed by the J.M.F.C., Haliyal in C.C.

No.432/2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), and

the judgment dated 05.07.2019 passed by the I Additional

District and Sessions Judge, U.K. Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, in

Criminal Appeal No.180/2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

appellate Court').

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.03.2009

at about 11:00 a.m., the accused, while driving a canter

bearing registration No.KA-25/B-2218 from Kalaghatagi

towards Haliyal in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against

a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-31/K-2814. It is

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579

HC-KAR

alleged that, as a result of the accident, the rider and two

pillion riders of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries and

succumbed to the same.

4. After completion of investigation, the Investigating

Officer filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under

Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(for short, 'IPC'). In order to prove its case, the prosecution

examined 12 witnesses, who were examined as PWs.1 to 12,

and marked 14 documents as Exhibits P1 to P14.

5. The trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence

on record, particularly the testimony of two eyewitnesses

PWs.1 and 4 and the spot sketch marked as Ex.P6, held that

the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

the accused. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the accused

for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A

of the IPC. The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/- each for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of

the IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under

Section 304-A of the IPC.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579

HC-KAR

6. The accused, being aggrieved by the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence, preferred Criminal Appeal

No.180/2013. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the

evidence on record, partly allowed the appeal and modified the

sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to

pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 of

the IPC; to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section

337 of the IPC; and to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the

offence under Section 304-A of the IPC.

7. Sri P.V. Mogali, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, submits that the accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent act of the motorcycle rider. It is contended that

the rider was negligent in carrying two pillion riders, which

contributed to the occurrence of the accident. Learned counsel

further submits that the accused was compelled to apply

sudden brakes when cattle entered the roadway, resulting in

the lorry toppling and causing the accident. It is further

submitted that the accused was neither rash nor negligent in

his manner of driving. Learned counsel also contends that the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579

HC-KAR

findings recorded by the trial Court are not supported by cogent

evidence and that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt

of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

8. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional

Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State,

submits that the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 clearly establishes

the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is

contended that the prosecution has proved that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused.

Learned AGA further submits that although the defence taken is

that the accused applied brakes to avoid cattle crossing the

road, no evidence of the presence of cattle was found during

the course of investigation. It is further submitted that both the

trial Court and the appellate Court, upon proper appreciation of

the evidence on record, have rightly concluded that the accused

committed the offences with which he was charged.

9. Considered the submissions of learned counsels for

the parties and perused the record.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579

HC-KAR

10. The occurrence of the accident on 12.03.2009 at

about 11:00 a.m., involving a canter bearing registration

No.KA-25/B-2218 and a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-

31/K-2814, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the

accused was the driver of the canter vehicle, and that three

persons died due to the injuries sustained in the said accident.

The only issue that requires consideration is whether the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

accused. PW.1, the complainant and an eyewitness, has given a

detailed account of the incident. He has stated that the accused

was driving the canter in a rash and negligent manner and

collided with the motorcycle, resulting in the death of two

persons on the spot and one person en route to the hospital.

10.1 PW.4, a police constable who was travelling in the

offending vehicle as it was carrying II PUC question papers,

stated that the accident occurred when the accused applied

brakes to avoid cattle on the road. However, the evidence of

PW.4 also supports the conclusion that the accused was driving

in a rash and negligent manner. PW.9, the Investigating

Officer, has provided further details regarding the accident. The

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579

HC-KAR

accused has extensively cross-examined PWs.1, 4, and 9;

however, their testimonies have remained consistent and

unshaken. The defence has failed to elicit any material to

discredit the version of these witnesses.

11. The trial Court, on consideration of the evidence on

record, held the accused guilty of the offences punishable

under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the IPC. The appellate

Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence and the findings

recorded by the trial Court, rightly confirmed the conviction.

12. This Court has also independently examined the

evidence on record, as referred to by the trial Court and the

appellate Court. The evidence of PWs.1, 4, and 9, along with

the spot sketch marked as Ex.P6, clearly establishes that the

accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent

manner. According to Ex.P6, the width of the road is 18 feet,

and the accident occurred on the extreme right side, leaving

less than 3 feet of space for the two-wheeler to pass the lorry.

Ex.P6 further indicates that the offending vehicle toppled after

the accused applied sudden brakes. In the circumstances, it is

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579

HC-KAR

difficult to accept the defence version that the brakes were

applied to avoid cattle on the road.

13. No ground is made out to interfere with the

concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court and the

appellate Court, insofar as the conviction of the accused is

concerned.

14. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that subsequent to the accident, the petitioner has

been employed as a driver with the Bangalore Metropolitan

Transport Corporation (BMTC), and that if he is ordered to

undergo imprisonment, he is likely to lose his employment. It is

further submitted that the incident dates back to the year 2009

and that the petitioner has a family comprising his wife and

children who are dependent on his earnings.

15. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred

more than 16 years ago, and considering the present

employment of the petitioner as well as his family

circumstances, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of

imprisonment to one of fine. Furthermore, if the fine amount is

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579

HC-KAR

directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased persons, it

would provide some financial assistance to the bereaved

families and mitigate, to an extent, the hardship caused by the

incident.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in part.

(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C. No.432/2009 dated 05.12.2010 passed by the J.M.F.C., Haliyal and the order dated 05.07.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.180/2013 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, U.K. Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, is hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction.

(iii) The order of sentence of imprisonment is modified with payment of fine of Rs.1,50,000/-. The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of six weeks' from the date of receipt of this order.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8579

HC-KAR

(iv) In default of payment of fine, the accused-

petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court.

(v) The trial Court shall release the fine amount of Rs.50,000/- each in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased persons namely,

(1) Smt. Yallavva w/o. Narayana Belgavankar,

(2) Suresh Narayana Belgavankar and

(3) Ajay s/o. Maleshi Hukregouda @Patil, electronically, on due identification.

(vi) Bail bonds and sureties, if any, stand cancelled.

(vii) The conviction and imposition of fine shall not affect the service conditions of the petitioner/accused.

Registry to return the trial Court records along with a