Karnataka High Court
Mohammad Aeshan Amin Shaikh vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7858
CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100278 OF 2019
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD AESHAN AMIN SHAIKH,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: 223, 1ST FLOOR, QUBA MASJID ROAD,
UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU, DIST: MYSURU.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIJAY M.MALALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH GARAG POLICE STATION,
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
COURT OF SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
KARNATAKA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 11.10.2019 PASSED BY THE PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN CRL.A.NO.62/2019
AND ALSO JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.06.2019 PASSED BY
THE 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., COURT, DHARWAD IN
C.C.NO.382/2016, PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 338 AND
304A OF IPC AND 134 R/W 187 OF MV ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY
ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FOR THE AFORESAID OFFENCES AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR
FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7858
CRL.RP No. 100278 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND)
Heard Sri Vijay M. Malali, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent - State.
2. The accused in C.C. No. 382/2016 has preferred
this revision petition challenging the order dated 14.06.2019
passed in the said case, as well as the order dated 11.10.2019
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 62/2019.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on
27.12.2015 at about 5:00 p.m., the accused, while driving his
car bearing No. KA-04/MC-1947 in a rash and negligent manner
from Dharwad towards Belgaum, near Santosh Hotel on P.B.
Road in Belur Industrial Area, lost control of the vehicle and
dashed against CW1, who was crossing the road along with her
son. Due to the impact, CW1 sustained injuries and her son
succumbed to the injuries.
4. Based on the complaint, FIR came to be registered.
Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge
sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7858
HC-KAR
Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles
Act. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses as PWs-1 to 9 and
marked 13 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-13. The statement
of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the
oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded a finding of
guilt against the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 338, and 304-A of the IPC, and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months, 6 months, and 6
months respectively.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.
62/2019. The Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the
evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the
order dated 14.06.2019 passed by the Trial Court.
6. Sri Vijay M. Malali, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, submits that the prosecution has failed to
adduce sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the accident
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7858
HC-KAR
occurred due to the negligence of the complainant, who was
carrying the deceased Manikanta while crossing the road. It is
further submitted that the accused was driving the vehicle with
due care and caution, and there was no indication of any
pedestrian attempting to cross the road at the relevant time. It
is also pointed out that a pedestrian underpass existed at the
spot, and in such circumstances, the act of the complainant in
crossing the road at an undesignated place clearly indicates
contributory negligence on her part.
7. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent - State,
submits that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that both the
Trial Court and the Appellate Court, upon appreciation of the
evidence on record, have concurrently recorded a finding of
guilt against the accused. The orders passed by both Courts are
well-reasoned and are supported by the evidence adduced by
the prosecution. Hence, no grounds are made out to interfere
with the concurrent findings.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7858
HC-KAR
8. Having considered the rival contentions advanced
by the learned counsel for both parties and on perusal of the
material on record, the fact that the accident occurred on
27.12.2015 at about 5:00 p.m., involving a car bearing No. KA-
04/MC-1947 driven by the accused, is not in dispute. The death
of Manikanta, son of CW1 - the complainant, as a result of the
said accident, is also not seriously disputed. The prosecution
has examined the mother of the deceased, Manikanta, as PW2.
PW2 has given a detailed account of the incident, and though
she was subjected to extensive cross-examination, her
testimony has remained consistent and unshaken. PW4, who
was examined as an eyewitness, has deposed that while they
were crossing the road, the accused came at high speed and,
without sounding the horn, hit PW2 and her son. Due to the
impact and the injuries sustained, Manikanta succumbed to the
injuries. PW4 was subjected to cross-examination; however, no
material worth discrediting her evidence was elicited.
9. PW3 was examined as a panch witness to Exhibits
P1 and P3. As per the testimony of PW2, the vehicle involved in
the accident was found at the spot and was identified as the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7858
HC-KAR
one driven by the accused. PW5, the grandfather of the
deceased Manikanta, was examined to corroborate the
presence of PW2 and her son at the place of the incident. The
official witnesses have provided a detailed account of the
investigation conducted in the matter.
10. The Trial Court, relying on the evidence of PW2, the
eyewitness PW4, and the panch witnesses PWs 1 and 3, held
that the accused was driving the vehicle and that he did so in a
rash and negligent manner, thereby causing the death of
Manikanta. Exhibit P5 - the postmortem report also establishes
that the cause of death was the injuries sustained in the
accident. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, on a
careful appreciation of the evidence on record, have rightly
concluded that the death of Manikanta was the result of the
injuries caused in the accident due to the rash and negligent
driving of the accused. The concurrent findings recorded by
both Courts are supported by cogent evidence, and no infirmity
is found warranting interference.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the
alternative, submits that the accused was driving the vehicle
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7858
HC-KAR
with due caution, and the accident occurred solely due to the
negligence of the mother of the deceased. It is contended that
the petitioner had exercised due care while driving, and the
accident was beyond his control. It is further submitted that the
incident dates back to the year 2015 and that the accused is
the sole breadwinner of the family. Imposition of a sentence of
imprisonment, it is urged, would adversely affect his career and
cause undue hardship to his family. Accordingly, learned
counsel prays that the sentence of imprisonment be modified
and substituted with a sentence of fine.
12. The offences for which the accused has been
convicted prescribe punishment of imprisonment or fine, or
both. Considering the age of the accused at the time of the
accident, his present age, and the fact that his family members
are dependent on his earnings, this Court is inclined to take a
lenient view and modify the sentence of imprisonment to one of
fine. Such a course would also serve to mitigate, to some
extent, the hardship caused to the family of the deceased
Manikanta. While the payment of fine to the parents of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7858
HC-KAR
deceased may not compensate the irreparable loss of life, it
would, nonetheless, provide some measure of relief.
13. In the light of the above, the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
The order of the trial Court in C.C.No.382/2016 dated
14.06.2019 and further confirmed by the Appellate Court in
Crl.A.No.62/2019 dated 11.10.2019, is hereby confirmed to the
extent of recording conviction for the offence punishable under
Sections 279, 338, 304-A of IPC and Section 134 r/w Section
187 of Motor Vehicles Act.
The sentence imposed to undergo imprisonment is
modified by substituting with fine amount of ₹1,50,000/-.
Four weeks time is granted to deposit the fine amount
before the trial Court from today.
The trial Court shall disburse the fine amount
electronically in favour of mother of the deceased Manikanta
after due identification.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7858
HC-KAR
If default in payment of fine amount, accused-petitioner
shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.
Registry to return the trial Court records along with copy
of this order.
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
CLK
CT: UMD
