Karnataka High Court
Kotrayya Shankrayya Abbigerimath vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8669
CRL.RP No. 100045 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100045 OF 2020
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
KOTRAYYA SHANKRAYYA ABBIGERIMATH,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: HULAGI VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST :KOPPAL.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MUNIRABAD POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD-560001.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
Location:
SECTION 397 R/W SEC.401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING ALLOW THIS
HIHG CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, BY SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT AND
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 27.01.2020 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.45/2015, THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPEAL
FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 17.11.2015 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOPPAL, IN C.C.NO.418/2011
THEREBY CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER
SECTION 279, 337 AND 304(A) OF IPC AND SENTENCING HIM TO
PAY A FINE OF RS.800/- AND 400 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 279 AND 337 RESPECTIVELY WITH DEFAULT CLAUSE AND
DIRECTING TO UNDERGO ONE YEAR R.I. FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 304(A) OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8669
CRL.RP No. 100045 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND)
Heard Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel appearing
for the revision petitioner/accused, and Sri T. Hanumareddy,
learned Additional Government Advocate representing the
respondent-State.
2. The accused has preferred this criminal revision
petition challenging the judgment of conviction and the order
on sentence dated 17.11.2015 in C.C. No. 418/2011, as well as
the order dated 27.01.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.
45/2015.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.02.2011,
at approximately 2:00 p.m., the accused, while driving the
vehicle bearing registration No. KA-26/790 in a rash and
negligent manner, collided with a two-wheeler bearing
registration No. KA-37/Q-601 proceeding in the opposite
direction, resulting in grievous injuries and the death of the
rider of the motorcycle. Consequently, the prosecution filed a
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8669
HC-KAR
charge sheet against the accused for offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution
examined 8 witnesses as PWs 1 to 8 and marked 11 documents
as Exhibits P1 to P11. The statement of the accused was
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The trial Court, after considering the evidence of PW1--the
complainant; PWs 3 and 4--the eyewitnesses; and PW2--the
spot mahazar witness, held that the accused was guilty of the
charged offences.
5. Being aggrieved, the accused preferred Criminal
Appeal No. 45/2015. The Appellate Court, upon meticulous re-
examination of the evidence on record and careful
consideration of the findings recorded by the Trial Court,
confirmed the order of conviction and sentence..
6. Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel appearing
for the revision petitioner, submits that the evidence of PWs 1,
3, and 4 is not reliable and that the petitioner has been wrongly
implicated in the case. It is further submitted that the
petitioner is not a resident of the village where the accident
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8669
HC-KAR
occurred, and the eyewitnesses are strangers to him.
Alternatively, learned counsel contends that the accident
occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased rider and that the accused was driving the bus with
due care. Learned counsel submits that, having regard to the
nature of the offences and the contributory negligence of the
deceased rider in causing the accident, the sentence imposed is
excessive and calls for reduction.
7. On the other hand, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-
State, submits that the prosecution has successfully established
its case through the evidence of PWs 1, 3, and 4. The
eyewitnesses have positively identified the accused. Although
PW5, the owner of the vehicle, did not support the
prosecution's case, the fact that the vehicle in question was
involved in the accident remains undisputed. It is further
submitted that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court,
relying on the proven evidence, recorded the conviction. The
petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity in the evidence or
in the impugned orders. In view of the foregoing submissions,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8669
HC-KAR
learned Additional Government Advocate prays for the
dismissal of the revision petition.
8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for both parties and perused the records.
9. The occurrence of the accident on 21.02.2011 at
approximately 2:00 p.m., involving the vehicle bearing
registration No. KA-26/790 and the two-wheeler bearing
registration No. KA-37/Q-601, is not in dispute. Likewise, the
cause of death of the rider of the motorcycle, resulting from
injuries sustained in the accident, is also undisputed. The
defence of the petitioner is that he has been wrongly
implicated. However, upon consideration of the evidence of
PWs 1, 3, and 4, the prosecution has satisfactorily established
that the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle.
10. The next question that requires consideration is
whether the accident occurred due to the rashness and
negligence of the accused. The evidence on record, including
Exhibit P2 (spot panchanama) and Exhibit P3 (spot sketch),
indicates a possible contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased rider. A perusal of Exhibit P3 shows that the width of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8669
HC-KAR
the road is ten feet, and the accident occurred near the centre
of the road. Prior to entering the road in question, the offending
vehicle had taken a right turn. Considering the width of the
road and the position of the place of the accident, the
possibility of contributory negligence by the deceased rider
cannot be ruled out. However, even if the accident occurred
due to the rashness and negligence of the deceased, if the
driver of the offending vehicle is also shown to have been rash
and negligent, the ingredients of Sections 279 and 304-A of the
Indian Penal Code would still be made out.
11. Although the defence extensively cross-examined
the eyewitnesses, no material was elicited to discredit the
prosecution's case. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate
Court, after considering the evidence on record, rightly
concluded that the accused acted rashly and negligently,
causing the accident which resulted in the death of the
deceased rider. This Court has also examined the evidence on
record, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate.
After re-assessment, it is manifest that the accused was rash
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8669
HC-KAR
and negligent in causing the accident. Accordingly, the
conviction recorded for the charged offences is hereby upheld.
12. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that Exhibit P3 clearly demonstrates that the accident
occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased rider. The perusal of Exhibit P3, this submission is
found to be justified and acceptable. It is further submitted
that, considering the year of the accident and the present
status of the accused, whose wife and children are dependent
on his earnings, the sentence of imprisonment warrants
modification to a fine. This submission is accordingly accepted.
If the sentence is substituted with a fine, and such fine is
directed to be paid to the family of the deceased rider, it would,
to some extent, provide financial assistance and mitigate the
hardship caused by the loss of a family member.
13. In the light of the foregoing findings, 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.418/2011 dated 17.11.2015 on the file of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8669
HC-KAR
the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Koppal and order
in Crl.A. No.45/2015 dated 27.01.2020 on the
file of District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, are
hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction.
However, the sentence of imprisonment as
ordered by the Trial Court is modified to fine of
₹25,000/-.
(iii) The fine amount shall be deposited before the
Trial Court within two months from today.
(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 Suresh Reddy 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
